This review was written 6 years ago. There is no need to change it. Chilcot ended up as a whitewash on the central issue of Blair's misleading Parliament. The excerpts from testimony given here show that there is a case against Blair.
Summary
1. The Labour Government did indeed ask for the second dossier to be "sexed up" and did know that the "45 minute claim" was false. The BBC staff who reported on this before the Iraq war was declared have been vindicated and should be compensated or re-instated.
2. An "open verdict" should be recorded for the death of Dr Kelly. This is the verdict that would have been returned by a coroner's court. Such a verdict does not mean that Dr Kelly was murdered, just that suicide cannot be established, it is the usual verdict that coroners make where there is any doubt at all in a suspected suicide. The Labour government should be censured for using powers designed for examining major accidents to block the due process of law.
Evidence from the Chilcot Inquiry
Click here to see the transcript of the enquiry.
Before assessing the evidence from the Chilcot Inquiry it should be understood that the government had produced a first, "dodgy dossier" to support its case and when this was exposed as a copy of an out of date document from the Internet it produced a second dossier claiming that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. This means that the second dossier was almost certainly produced in bad faith. Hutton attacked the media on the basis of misreporting the background to this bad faith document. The dossier is available at http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page271 and contains the statements:
This was interpreted by the press and Parliament, without any correction from the Government, as implying that Iraq could attack British forces in Cyprus within 45 minutes. (See Daily Mail article
Chilcot is now showing that the government had simply assumed that WMDs existed and knew that they were simply assuming this (despite being advised to the contrary by Dr Kelly, the most qualified expert on this subject in the country). It is also showing that the members of the government at the time are now in total disarray about the "45 minutes" warning that the anti-war media had said was fabricated. Powell says there was no immediate threat, Hoon says it applied to shells and munitions, Straw says it was an error.
The evidence from the Chilcot Inquiry:
Jonathan Powell, a close advisor of Blair said:
"We had an assumption, and we had that assumption because Saddam Hussein had lied about using WMD and he had lied about getting rid of them. We had bombed Iraq in 1998 on that basis and it would have taken some quite strong evidence to suggest he had got rid of them. " (Telegraph 19/01/10)
Powell states clearly that when he and the others were discussing the immediacy of the threat from Iraq they knew that "..he wasn't about to send a missile to Cyprus, but, if we left him alone, he would be able to develop these weapons and use them." In other words they knew that the 45 minute claim was wrong. (Chilcot Inquiry Transcript p61, line 18)
Geoff Hoon, Minister of Defence at the time, just takes the p**s, he says, in the context of newspapers blazoning the story that missiles could attack Cyprus in 45 minutes:
"First of all, when I saw the draft, the only thing in the draft that "surprise" is perhaps too strong a word, but the only thing in the draft that I had not seen before in terms of my familiarity with the intelligence was this 45 minute claim. I think, if I can put it this way, my experience of dealing with intelligence over many years was that, if you saw something new and different, well, I would ask about it and I asked about what that meant and I think I had not been able to find it in any record, but almost certainly because of the way it happened. I asked my private office and they got someone from the department, I think from DIS, but I can't be sure about that, to come and explain what that meant, and I had a kind of impromptu meeting in my office to really go through what was meant by a 45 minute claim. The explanation was fairly straightforward; that Saddam had guns that could fire shells containing chemical weapons. He had done that against Iran and could do so again, and that 45 minutes was actually quite a long time for him to be able to order that the shells could be loaded into guns and fired. " (Transcript).
Note that in 2004, Tony Blair confessed in Parliament that he did not know that the 45 minutes referred to battlefield munitions. Michael Howard asked him to resign over this issue. (see Independent article 6/2/2004.
Jack Straw says:
"Asked about the 45-minute claim in the Iraqi weapons dossier, Straw replied: "It was an error that has haunted us ever since." But he said that "intelligence alone was never the basis for my judgment about the nature of the threat Iraq posed"." (Guardian 21/01/10)
Major General Laurie, who was one of the experts involved drawing up the dossier, maintained that Alastair Campbell's claims not to have sexed up the dossier were false and said of whether or not the dossier was to make the case for war that: "this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used." Independent: Iraq evidence 'vindicates BBC's dossier claims'
The Chilcott Inquiry should condemn Blair, Campbell, Falconer and the others and exonerate Gilligan and the media. "Lord" Hutton should also be censured, when there are bad men and slimy apparachiks stalking the corridors of power we are all at risk.
Blair has used the barrister's term "I believe" to qualify many of his utterances in Office. He then declared that he was "acting in good faith". However, Blair must have known what Hoon and Straw knew. The problem is proving it in a court. Lawyers make the best con men. The best approach to prosecuting Blair is probably to mount a prosecution against other members of the Government who have confessed that they knew that the 45 minute claim was false. Any of these who can testify that Blair was told and knew that the 45 minute claim was false should then be given immunity from prosecution.
Chilcot, Hutton and the Death of Dr David Kelly
Dr David Kelly was a UN Weapons Inspector before the Iraq War who suggested that there was no real evidence of an immediate threat from Iraq. Shortly after his views were publicised he was found dead near his home.
This article is not about whether or not a murder took place. I genuinely believe, on the basis of the evidence that it is not possible to say that Kelly was murdered - he may have committed suicide. Equally, on the basis of the evidence it is not possible to say that he committed suicide. As will be seen below, there were many unexplained features which, had this been a death out of the public eye, would have lead to an "open verdict" in a coroner's court. It was this possibility, that a coroner's court would bring in an open verdict, that caused Blair to suspend the legal process and set up an inquiry that could avoid embarrassment and chasten the anti-war media.
There are two issues at stake here.
The first is that the government wrongly used special powers to set up the Hutton Inquiry to stop a coroner's inquest and to remove the anti-war media. The Hutton Inquiry also embargoed all access to important evidence for 70 years without authority in law to do so. This might seem like a technicality but it is an extremely serious issue, the Executive must not be able to simply overturn due legal process on a whim, the rule of law is civilisation itself.
The second is the conclusion of the Hutton Inquiry that "the notes did not support the allegation that the Government knew that the 45 minutes claim was probably wrong" On this basis Hutton condemned Gilligan, the BBC journalist, and condemned the management of the BBC. Condemnations that resulted in resignations and huge damage to the BBC. This is another serious issue, the government employed a kangaroo court to simply dispose of men of good faith in the BBC. We now know that the BBC was right and Hutton was wrong, Chilcot has shown that few if any members of the government actually believed the 45 minute claim (see below) and Blair would have been negligent if he actually believed the claim..
The first issue is constitutionally the most important. The rule of law is the fundamental requirement of a civilised country. The fact that, when the government felt uncomfortable it simply overrode normal legal process is scandalous. Parliament is the guardian of the rule of law but the opposition parties and the Labour party MPs did nothing.
The Chilcot Inquiry is now demonstrating that the second issue, the Hutton Inquiry's conclusion about the media, was wrong. Hutton judged that Gilligan had fabricated the claim that the "government knew that the 45 minutes claim was probably wrong". But now those present at the time are beginning to admit that Gilligan was right. They are all concurring that the government simply assumed that Iraq had WMDs and that these could be deployed in 45 minutes and knew that this was an assumption. The evidence from the Chilcot Inquiry is pursued at the end of this article. Those who were forced to resign should be compensated and the Labour government censured.
Chilcot has also shown that Tony Blair misled Parliament. He failed to correct the widespread impression that WMDs could be launched by missile when he knew that this was not true. Furthermore in 2004 he stated in Parliament that he truly believed that the WMDs could be launched by missile. But we now know that he could not have "believed" this. The Chilcott Enquiry shows that everyone from his Minister of Defence to the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) agrees that Saddam could not have launched WMDs in missiles within 45 minutes. Blair has always escaped by using the barrister's ploy of stating "beliefs" rather than truths but this time he has stated a belief too many. The JIC was Blair's own Prime ministerial committee so Blair's admitted "belief" that WMDS could be delivered by missile within 45 minutes was either deliberately misleading Parliament or negligently misleading Parliament. Whichever way Blair misled the House. However, Parliament is so supine it could be led naked through the streets and not give a damn about its honour and being misled.
The Strange Case of the Death of Dr David Kelly, UN Weapons Inspector
The following evidence is included to show that the Inquiry was set up incorrectly and that an open verdict should have been made.
The history of the Kelly case:
On 29th May 2003 Andrew Gilligan reports Dr David Kelly's views. Kelly was a UN Weapons inspector and is a leading world expert on biological warfare who had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly
On 12th June Lord Falconer is appointed Lord Chancellor. This is described as a temporary appointment to sort out the legal system.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3894.asp
Intelligent people point out that this is a dangerous failure to separate the law from the executive. In the hands of a government that is unscrupulous or fanatical it could lead to a police state. On July 18th Dr Kelly is found dead in the woods. On 14th August Falconer uses his special powers to adjourn the coroner's inquest into the death of Dr Kelly before it can pronounce a verdict on the cause of death.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1018706,00.html
Falconer sets up an inquiry under Lord Hutton that diverts everyone's attention onto political issues. Falconer used a special power that was introduced by the Labour Government in 1999, allegedly for dealing with major rail crashes, to stop the coroner's inquest. Parliament did not intend that this power should be used to intervene in the case of the death of individuals such as Dr David Kelly.
It is now possible for conspiracy theorists to claim that the government murdered Dr Kelly and have covered up the murder. Paragraphs in the Hutton inquiry such as the following only fuel suspicion:
"Evidence submitted by Thames Valley Police will appear on this site at a later date as it contains a large amount of sensitive and personal information which needs to be edited out before release". http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/
The separation of the judiciary from the executive is the cornerstone of civilised government. Without this we appear like a police state.A Coroner's court would have been forced to return an open verdict because there was no single factor that actually caused Kelly's death:
Neither suicide nor accident nor murder can be demonstrated, an open verdict is the only fair verdict.
Consider the evidence below and, if you are not partisan for New Labour or the Establishment, like many British journalists, you might consider that Kelly's death was problematical.
------------------------------------------------
The special power of the Lord Chancellor:
"The Access to Justice Act 1999. Section 71 of that Act .. introduced a new section into the Coroners Act 1988 (section 17A). This new provision generally requires a coroner to adjourn an inquest where he is informed by the Lord Chancellor that a public inquiry, chaired by a judge, is to be held into the events surrounding the death, and that the inquiry is likely to constitute sufficient investigation into the death concerned."
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/hoc9959.html
The politically appointed Falconer used this special power to stop the normal legal process.
Why conspiracy theorists might think that Dr David Kelly was murdered:
1. Dr Kelly was a member of the Baha'i Faith which abhors suicide and had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly
2. The medical report on Kelly's death was amended:
"The resumed inquest Thursday into the death of 59-year-old Kelly at Oxford Coroner's Court heard evidence from an amended medical report by a Home Office pathologist which said the main cause of death was the number of incisions into his wrist."http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/14/uk.hutton1315/
3. Slashing of the wrists is normally only effective if the radial arteries are involved (not just the veins) and both wrists are cut unless an anticoagulant is administered to enhance bleeding. In Kelly's case there was very little blood at the site of the "suicide".
4. The dose of coproxamol was only a quarter of the fatal dose.
5. Kelly's wrist had been cut before he removed his watch.
6. Kelly suspected he might be murdered. In an Email to the New York Times he said there were "many dark actors playing games". In a statement to a diplomat he said he might be found "dead in the woods".
7. He did not leave a suicide note.
8. The police helicopter used to search for Kelly was replaced by an army helicopter. It did not find him.
9. He moved from a safe house to his home with no apparent guard or other protection being transferred to his own house.
10. A team of six prominent doctors and a QC have launched a campaign for a full inquest into Kelly's death (See Dr David Kelly: doctors start legal action for new inquest Daily Telegraph 5/12/09).
11. When the team of doctors requested details of the pathologist's report it emerged that "Lord" Hutton ordered many of the details of the case from the police investigation to the pathologist's report to be kept secret for 70 years (See Daily Mail 23/01/2010).
12. Dr Kelly apparently killed himself without leaving any fingerprints on the knife (Daily Mail October 2007) or the pack of pills or his water bottle (Daily Mail 27/01/11).
The Government had treated Kelly as a serious threat from the start of the Gilligan report. They undermined and attacked his credibility in every possible way and have overtly threatened the BBC. If Kelly knew for certain that Blair had authorised the 45 minute part of the dossier he would probably bring down the government and undermine the invasion of Iraq. Did he have such knowledge and did he pay the price? Kelly's death looks like murder. It may have been the CIA, MI5, Mossad, arab secret services etc. It may have been suicide. It has been declared to be murder by many foreign news reporters. The circumstances of the death are highly suspicious and in the case of any ordinary person might lead to a full police investigation for murder. There is ample evidence from the "Ambassador Wilson" case in the US that the allies were prepared to deal violently with evn mild opposition and Kelly was distinctly more threatening to the allied cause than Wilson.
Other suspicious circumstances arising from the Hutton inquiry:
Dr Kelly's wife said Kelly was not depressed.
The search teams went straight to the bodyThere was only one dog team and they were given the location of the body as their first search area. A location that was miles away from Kelly's home! When the dog team was given their instructions the police seemed to know where the body was located as is shown by the evidence from the Hutton inquiry:
25 Q. How many other people were at the briefing?
A. There were a couple of police officers, my search manager, Neil Knight and Louise Holmes. .. We were tasked initially with a search area of 17 Harrowdown Hill and the pathway running alongside it to the river.
This small search area was only a small fraction of the whole search site and they found the body there.
-------------------------------
Why were the police looking for a suicide victim before they knew Kelly was dead?PC Sawyer's testimony:
1 I was informed by PC Franklin we had a high risk missing person. We had a missing person who was identified to me as Dr Kelly.
4 Q. Just pause there for a moment. A high risk missing person, meaning what?
6 A. "High risk" means that there is a possibility that because of the length of time they have been missing there is a possibility that he might have done himself harm.
Notice that the policeman did not say "a person who had had an accident" or "who had a heart attack" but "done himself harm". Kelly was almost 60.
-----------------------------------------------
There was not enough blood to account for the death:Paramedic's (MS VANESSA ELIZABETH HUNT) evidence:8
Q. And is there anything else that you know of about the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?
A. Only that the amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing.
16 Q. On the clothing?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. One of the police officers or someone this morning said there appeared to be some blood on the ground. Did you see that?
21 A. I could see some on -- there were some stinging nettles to the left of the body. As to on the ground, I do not remember seeing a sort of huge puddle or anything like that. There was dried blood on the left wrist. His jacket was pulled to sort of mid forearm area and from that area down towards the hand there was dried blood, but no obvious sign of a wound or anything, it was just dried blood.
The other paramedic said:
9 Q. Is there anything else you would like to say about the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death?
11 A. Just the same as my colleague actually, we was surprised there was not more blood on the body if it was an arterial bleed.
The dog search team reported:
Q. What did you see?
18 A. I could see a body slumped against the bottom of a tree, so I turned around and shouted to Paul to ring Control and tell them that we had found something and then went closer to just see whether there was any first aid that I needed to administer
8 Q. Did you see any blood anywhere else?
9 A. Just on the left arm and the left side.
The forensic biologist made no measurements of blood loss into the environment and just speculated that there must have been sufficient loss.
------------------------
29 capsules were missing from the pack in Kelly's pocket. The amount of paracetamol in the stomach was consistent with only 1-2 tablets being taken orally.Toxicologist (MR KNOX):
12 Q. I want to ask you about the results, first of all the results of the blood item which you have called NCH47 which I think is the plain blood. Could you tell us what you found there, in NCH47, the blood sample?
16 A. Yes, I found paracetamol at a concentration of 97 microgrammes per millilitre of blood; and dextropropoxyphene at a concentration of 19 microgrammes per millilitre of blood.
...
Note: the dose of coproxamol was not sufficient to cause death if given orally (though probably enough if given intravenously).
11 Q. Putting it in short terms, you would expect there to be about four times as much paracetamol and two and a half to four times as much dextropropoxyphene?
14 A. Two, three, four times as much paracetamol and two, three, four times as much dextropropoxyphene in the average overdose case, which results in fatalities.
Note: the toxicologist is clearly saying that the drugs were not the cause of death had they been administered orally.
.....
15 Q. What about the stomach contents, NCH49?
16 A. Yes, the stomach contents consisted of a brown watery slurry containing approximately 67 milligrammes of paracetamol. I noticed when I was examining it that there was no unusual smell and there was no obvious tablet or food material. I did however notice two pieces of what I believe could have been tablet film coating, the protective plastic coating, yes. That is all I did at that stage, yes.
--------------------
Note: If Kelly took 1-4 hours to die after the overdose then only 4g of paracetamol should have been in the blood and body fluids, not 8g. If he died almost immediately having taken 29 tablets the stomach concentration should have been much higher. If he vomited out the tablets these should have been found in his vomit.
More from the toxicologist (MR KNOX):
12 Q. I want to ask you about the results, first of all the results of the blood item which you have called NCH47 which I think is the plain blood. Could you tell us what you found there, in NCH47, the blood sample?
16 A. Yes, I found paracetamol at a concentration of 97 microgrammes per millilitre of blood; and dextropropoxyphene at a concentration of 1.0 microgrammes per millilitre of blood.
The tablets contained:
8.4 "Coproxamol which is a prescription only medicine containing 325 milligrammes of paracetamol and 32.5 milligrammes of dextropropoxyphene"
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/c/Capadexcap.htm
100 microgrammes per ml = 100 milligrams per litre
80 litres of body fluid = 8 grams of paracetamol
325 milligrams per tablet with 30 tablets give
10 grams input.
80 litres of body fluid = 80mg dextropropoxyphene
32.5 mg per tablet = 1 gram per 30 tablets (in normal people only 10% gets into the blood stream).
Dextropropoxyphene has a half life of 6-12 hours paracetamol has a half life of 1-4 hours This means that as time goes on the ratio of dextropropoxyphene to paracetamol must increase. The ratio was still at the level to be expected soon after taking the tablets, in fact the blood levels are as high as they could possibly be suggesting that death occurred within 30 minutes of ingesting the capsules. If this were the case then there should have been evidence of the capsules in Kelly's vomit.
Either the toxicologist was covering up or incompetent or the drugs were given by injection (the dose is fatal if given intravenously, the initial very high dose in the blood then spreads into the tissues masking the murder). If intravenous injection had occurred it would have been at the site of the wrist wounds because no other injection site was found.
So, what was the truth? We do not know: an open verdict is the only safe judgement.
New evidence about the death of Dr Kelly is continuing to appear. For example it now appears that a helicopter appeared on the scene about 90 minutes after Dr Kelly's body was found but this was not mentioned by the police or the Hutton Inquiry ( see Helicopter claim over Kelly death).
The Chilcot Inquiry
The Chilcott Inquiry is beginning to show that the Hutton Inquiry's condemnation of the BBC was entirely wrong. There should now be a condemnation of the Government, especially Blair and Campbell and a retraction of the Hutton Inquiry's condemnation of the BBC.
The Hutton Inquiry's condemnation of the BBC that led to widespread dismissals is summarised below:
"53 I summarise my conclusions on these issues in paragraph 291 of the report as follows:
15/1/10
Summary
1. The Labour Government did indeed ask for the second dossier to be "sexed up" and did know that the "45 minute claim" was false. The BBC staff who reported on this before the Iraq war was declared have been vindicated and should be compensated or re-instated.
2. An "open verdict" should be recorded for the death of Dr Kelly. This is the verdict that would have been returned by a coroner's court. Such a verdict does not mean that Dr Kelly was murdered, just that suicide cannot be established, it is the usual verdict that coroners make where there is any doubt at all in a suspected suicide. The Labour government should be censured for using powers designed for examining major accidents to block the due process of law.
Evidence from the Chilcot Inquiry
Click here to see the transcript of the enquiry.
Before assessing the evidence from the Chilcot Inquiry it should be understood that the government had produced a first, "dodgy dossier" to support its case and when this was exposed as a copy of an out of date document from the Internet it produced a second dossier claiming that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq. This means that the second dossier was almost certainly produced in bad faith. Hutton attacked the media on the basis of misreporting the background to this bad faith document. The dossier is available at http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page271 and contains the statements:
- Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles;
- Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the SCUD ballistic missile in breach of UNSCR 687, which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer range ballistic missiles;
- Iraq’s military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within forty five minutes of a decision to do so;
This was interpreted by the press and Parliament, without any correction from the Government, as implying that Iraq could attack British forces in Cyprus within 45 minutes. (See Daily Mail article
Chilcot is now showing that the government had simply assumed that WMDs existed and knew that they were simply assuming this (despite being advised to the contrary by Dr Kelly, the most qualified expert on this subject in the country). It is also showing that the members of the government at the time are now in total disarray about the "45 minutes" warning that the anti-war media had said was fabricated. Powell says there was no immediate threat, Hoon says it applied to shells and munitions, Straw says it was an error.
The evidence from the Chilcot Inquiry:
Jonathan Powell, a close advisor of Blair said:
"We had an assumption, and we had that assumption because Saddam Hussein had lied about using WMD and he had lied about getting rid of them. We had bombed Iraq in 1998 on that basis and it would have taken some quite strong evidence to suggest he had got rid of them. " (Telegraph 19/01/10)
Powell states clearly that when he and the others were discussing the immediacy of the threat from Iraq they knew that "..he wasn't about to send a missile to Cyprus, but, if we left him alone, he would be able to develop these weapons and use them." In other words they knew that the 45 minute claim was wrong. (Chilcot Inquiry Transcript p61, line 18)
Geoff Hoon, Minister of Defence at the time, just takes the p**s, he says, in the context of newspapers blazoning the story that missiles could attack Cyprus in 45 minutes:
"First of all, when I saw the draft, the only thing in the draft that "surprise" is perhaps too strong a word, but the only thing in the draft that I had not seen before in terms of my familiarity with the intelligence was this 45 minute claim. I think, if I can put it this way, my experience of dealing with intelligence over many years was that, if you saw something new and different, well, I would ask about it and I asked about what that meant and I think I had not been able to find it in any record, but almost certainly because of the way it happened. I asked my private office and they got someone from the department, I think from DIS, but I can't be sure about that, to come and explain what that meant, and I had a kind of impromptu meeting in my office to really go through what was meant by a 45 minute claim. The explanation was fairly straightforward; that Saddam had guns that could fire shells containing chemical weapons. He had done that against Iran and could do so again, and that 45 minutes was actually quite a long time for him to be able to order that the shells could be loaded into guns and fired. " (Transcript).
Note that in 2004, Tony Blair confessed in Parliament that he did not know that the 45 minutes referred to battlefield munitions. Michael Howard asked him to resign over this issue. (see Independent article 6/2/2004.
Jack Straw says:
"Asked about the 45-minute claim in the Iraqi weapons dossier, Straw replied: "It was an error that has haunted us ever since." But he said that "intelligence alone was never the basis for my judgment about the nature of the threat Iraq posed"." (Guardian 21/01/10)
Major General Laurie, who was one of the experts involved drawing up the dossier, maintained that Alastair Campbell's claims not to have sexed up the dossier were false and said of whether or not the dossier was to make the case for war that: "this was exactly its purpose and these very words were used." Independent: Iraq evidence 'vindicates BBC's dossier claims'
The Chilcott Inquiry should condemn Blair, Campbell, Falconer and the others and exonerate Gilligan and the media. "Lord" Hutton should also be censured, when there are bad men and slimy apparachiks stalking the corridors of power we are all at risk.
Blair has used the barrister's term "I believe" to qualify many of his utterances in Office. He then declared that he was "acting in good faith". However, Blair must have known what Hoon and Straw knew. The problem is proving it in a court. Lawyers make the best con men. The best approach to prosecuting Blair is probably to mount a prosecution against other members of the Government who have confessed that they knew that the 45 minute claim was false. Any of these who can testify that Blair was told and knew that the 45 minute claim was false should then be given immunity from prosecution.
Chilcot, Hutton and the Death of Dr David Kelly
Dr David Kelly was a UN Weapons Inspector before the Iraq War who suggested that there was no real evidence of an immediate threat from Iraq. Shortly after his views were publicised he was found dead near his home.
This article is not about whether or not a murder took place. I genuinely believe, on the basis of the evidence that it is not possible to say that Kelly was murdered - he may have committed suicide. Equally, on the basis of the evidence it is not possible to say that he committed suicide. As will be seen below, there were many unexplained features which, had this been a death out of the public eye, would have lead to an "open verdict" in a coroner's court. It was this possibility, that a coroner's court would bring in an open verdict, that caused Blair to suspend the legal process and set up an inquiry that could avoid embarrassment and chasten the anti-war media.
There are two issues at stake here.
The first is that the government wrongly used special powers to set up the Hutton Inquiry to stop a coroner's inquest and to remove the anti-war media. The Hutton Inquiry also embargoed all access to important evidence for 70 years without authority in law to do so. This might seem like a technicality but it is an extremely serious issue, the Executive must not be able to simply overturn due legal process on a whim, the rule of law is civilisation itself.
The second is the conclusion of the Hutton Inquiry that "the notes did not support the allegation that the Government knew that the 45 minutes claim was probably wrong" On this basis Hutton condemned Gilligan, the BBC journalist, and condemned the management of the BBC. Condemnations that resulted in resignations and huge damage to the BBC. This is another serious issue, the government employed a kangaroo court to simply dispose of men of good faith in the BBC. We now know that the BBC was right and Hutton was wrong, Chilcot has shown that few if any members of the government actually believed the 45 minute claim (see below) and Blair would have been negligent if he actually believed the claim..
The first issue is constitutionally the most important. The rule of law is the fundamental requirement of a civilised country. The fact that, when the government felt uncomfortable it simply overrode normal legal process is scandalous. Parliament is the guardian of the rule of law but the opposition parties and the Labour party MPs did nothing.
The Chilcot Inquiry is now demonstrating that the second issue, the Hutton Inquiry's conclusion about the media, was wrong. Hutton judged that Gilligan had fabricated the claim that the "government knew that the 45 minutes claim was probably wrong". But now those present at the time are beginning to admit that Gilligan was right. They are all concurring that the government simply assumed that Iraq had WMDs and that these could be deployed in 45 minutes and knew that this was an assumption. The evidence from the Chilcot Inquiry is pursued at the end of this article. Those who were forced to resign should be compensated and the Labour government censured.
Chilcot has also shown that Tony Blair misled Parliament. He failed to correct the widespread impression that WMDs could be launched by missile when he knew that this was not true. Furthermore in 2004 he stated in Parliament that he truly believed that the WMDs could be launched by missile. But we now know that he could not have "believed" this. The Chilcott Enquiry shows that everyone from his Minister of Defence to the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) agrees that Saddam could not have launched WMDs in missiles within 45 minutes. Blair has always escaped by using the barrister's ploy of stating "beliefs" rather than truths but this time he has stated a belief too many. The JIC was Blair's own Prime ministerial committee so Blair's admitted "belief" that WMDS could be delivered by missile within 45 minutes was either deliberately misleading Parliament or negligently misleading Parliament. Whichever way Blair misled the House. However, Parliament is so supine it could be led naked through the streets and not give a damn about its honour and being misled.
The Strange Case of the Death of Dr David Kelly, UN Weapons Inspector
The following evidence is included to show that the Inquiry was set up incorrectly and that an open verdict should have been made.
The history of the Kelly case:
On 29th May 2003 Andrew Gilligan reports Dr David Kelly's views. Kelly was a UN Weapons inspector and is a leading world expert on biological warfare who had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly
On 12th June Lord Falconer is appointed Lord Chancellor. This is described as a temporary appointment to sort out the legal system.
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page3894.asp
Intelligent people point out that this is a dangerous failure to separate the law from the executive. In the hands of a government that is unscrupulous or fanatical it could lead to a police state. On July 18th Dr Kelly is found dead in the woods. On 14th August Falconer uses his special powers to adjourn the coroner's inquest into the death of Dr Kelly before it can pronounce a verdict on the cause of death.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1018706,00.html
Falconer sets up an inquiry under Lord Hutton that diverts everyone's attention onto political issues. Falconer used a special power that was introduced by the Labour Government in 1999, allegedly for dealing with major rail crashes, to stop the coroner's inquest. Parliament did not intend that this power should be used to intervene in the case of the death of individuals such as Dr David Kelly.
It is now possible for conspiracy theorists to claim that the government murdered Dr Kelly and have covered up the murder. Paragraphs in the Hutton inquiry such as the following only fuel suspicion:
"Evidence submitted by Thames Valley Police will appear on this site at a later date as it contains a large amount of sensitive and personal information which needs to be edited out before release". http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/
The separation of the judiciary from the executive is the cornerstone of civilised government. Without this we appear like a police state.A Coroner's court would have been forced to return an open verdict because there was no single factor that actually caused Kelly's death:
- The death could have been suicide but there was no single cause of death. A verdict of suicide would have been very unlikely.
- The death could have been an accident, the taking of the drugs and the cut wrist being a cry for help (neither being established as the cause of death).
- The death could have been murder. The UK has a history of suspicious suicides linked to the security services. Kelly could have been injected with a mixture of drugs and then the injection site in the wrist covered up by slashing it. The concentration of the drugs in the blood during a slow injection would be fatally high. Such possibilities exist and have not been ruled out. (Intravenous paracetamol is known by the tradename 'Perfalgan'.)
Neither suicide nor accident nor murder can be demonstrated, an open verdict is the only fair verdict.
Consider the evidence below and, if you are not partisan for New Labour or the Establishment, like many British journalists, you might consider that Kelly's death was problematical.
------------------------------------------------
The special power of the Lord Chancellor:
"The Access to Justice Act 1999. Section 71 of that Act .. introduced a new section into the Coroners Act 1988 (section 17A). This new provision generally requires a coroner to adjourn an inquest where he is informed by the Lord Chancellor that a public inquiry, chaired by a judge, is to be held into the events surrounding the death, and that the inquiry is likely to constitute sufficient investigation into the death concerned."
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/hoc9959.html
The politically appointed Falconer used this special power to stop the normal legal process.
Why conspiracy theorists might think that Dr David Kelly was murdered:
1. Dr Kelly was a member of the Baha'i Faith which abhors suicide and had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly
2. The medical report on Kelly's death was amended:
"The resumed inquest Thursday into the death of 59-year-old Kelly at Oxford Coroner's Court heard evidence from an amended medical report by a Home Office pathologist which said the main cause of death was the number of incisions into his wrist."http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/14/uk.hutton1315/
3. Slashing of the wrists is normally only effective if the radial arteries are involved (not just the veins) and both wrists are cut unless an anticoagulant is administered to enhance bleeding. In Kelly's case there was very little blood at the site of the "suicide".
4. The dose of coproxamol was only a quarter of the fatal dose.
5. Kelly's wrist had been cut before he removed his watch.
6. Kelly suspected he might be murdered. In an Email to the New York Times he said there were "many dark actors playing games". In a statement to a diplomat he said he might be found "dead in the woods".
7. He did not leave a suicide note.
8. The police helicopter used to search for Kelly was replaced by an army helicopter. It did not find him.
9. He moved from a safe house to his home with no apparent guard or other protection being transferred to his own house.
10. A team of six prominent doctors and a QC have launched a campaign for a full inquest into Kelly's death (See Dr David Kelly: doctors start legal action for new inquest Daily Telegraph 5/12/09).
11. When the team of doctors requested details of the pathologist's report it emerged that "Lord" Hutton ordered many of the details of the case from the police investigation to the pathologist's report to be kept secret for 70 years (See Daily Mail 23/01/2010).
12. Dr Kelly apparently killed himself without leaving any fingerprints on the knife (Daily Mail October 2007) or the pack of pills or his water bottle (Daily Mail 27/01/11).
The Government had treated Kelly as a serious threat from the start of the Gilligan report. They undermined and attacked his credibility in every possible way and have overtly threatened the BBC. If Kelly knew for certain that Blair had authorised the 45 minute part of the dossier he would probably bring down the government and undermine the invasion of Iraq. Did he have such knowledge and did he pay the price? Kelly's death looks like murder. It may have been the CIA, MI5, Mossad, arab secret services etc. It may have been suicide. It has been declared to be murder by many foreign news reporters. The circumstances of the death are highly suspicious and in the case of any ordinary person might lead to a full police investigation for murder. There is ample evidence from the "Ambassador Wilson" case in the US that the allies were prepared to deal violently with evn mild opposition and Kelly was distinctly more threatening to the allied cause than Wilson.
Other suspicious circumstances arising from the Hutton inquiry:
Dr Kelly's wife said Kelly was not depressed.
The search teams went straight to the bodyThere was only one dog team and they were given the location of the body as their first search area. A location that was miles away from Kelly's home! When the dog team was given their instructions the police seemed to know where the body was located as is shown by the evidence from the Hutton inquiry:
25 Q. How many other people were at the briefing?
A. There were a couple of police officers, my search manager, Neil Knight and Louise Holmes. .. We were tasked initially with a search area of 17 Harrowdown Hill and the pathway running alongside it to the river.
This small search area was only a small fraction of the whole search site and they found the body there.
-------------------------------
Why were the police looking for a suicide victim before they knew Kelly was dead?PC Sawyer's testimony:
1 I was informed by PC Franklin we had a high risk missing person. We had a missing person who was identified to me as Dr Kelly.
4 Q. Just pause there for a moment. A high risk missing person, meaning what?
6 A. "High risk" means that there is a possibility that because of the length of time they have been missing there is a possibility that he might have done himself harm.
Notice that the policeman did not say "a person who had had an accident" or "who had a heart attack" but "done himself harm". Kelly was almost 60.
-----------------------------------------------
There was not enough blood to account for the death:Paramedic's (MS VANESSA ELIZABETH HUNT) evidence:8
Q. And is there anything else that you know of about the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death that you can assist his Lordship with?
A. Only that the amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing.
16 Q. On the clothing?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. One of the police officers or someone this morning said there appeared to be some blood on the ground. Did you see that?
21 A. I could see some on -- there were some stinging nettles to the left of the body. As to on the ground, I do not remember seeing a sort of huge puddle or anything like that. There was dried blood on the left wrist. His jacket was pulled to sort of mid forearm area and from that area down towards the hand there was dried blood, but no obvious sign of a wound or anything, it was just dried blood.
The other paramedic said:
9 Q. Is there anything else you would like to say about the circumstances leading to Dr Kelly's death?
11 A. Just the same as my colleague actually, we was surprised there was not more blood on the body if it was an arterial bleed.
The dog search team reported:
Q. What did you see?
18 A. I could see a body slumped against the bottom of a tree, so I turned around and shouted to Paul to ring Control and tell them that we had found something and then went closer to just see whether there was any first aid that I needed to administer
8 Q. Did you see any blood anywhere else?
9 A. Just on the left arm and the left side.
The forensic biologist made no measurements of blood loss into the environment and just speculated that there must have been sufficient loss.
------------------------
29 capsules were missing from the pack in Kelly's pocket. The amount of paracetamol in the stomach was consistent with only 1-2 tablets being taken orally.Toxicologist (MR KNOX):
12 Q. I want to ask you about the results, first of all the results of the blood item which you have called NCH47 which I think is the plain blood. Could you tell us what you found there, in NCH47, the blood sample?
16 A. Yes, I found paracetamol at a concentration of 97 microgrammes per millilitre of blood; and dextropropoxyphene at a concentration of 19 microgrammes per millilitre of blood.
...
Note: the dose of coproxamol was not sufficient to cause death if given orally (though probably enough if given intravenously).
11 Q. Putting it in short terms, you would expect there to be about four times as much paracetamol and two and a half to four times as much dextropropoxyphene?
14 A. Two, three, four times as much paracetamol and two, three, four times as much dextropropoxyphene in the average overdose case, which results in fatalities.
Note: the toxicologist is clearly saying that the drugs were not the cause of death had they been administered orally.
.....
15 Q. What about the stomach contents, NCH49?
16 A. Yes, the stomach contents consisted of a brown watery slurry containing approximately 67 milligrammes of paracetamol. I noticed when I was examining it that there was no unusual smell and there was no obvious tablet or food material. I did however notice two pieces of what I believe could have been tablet film coating, the protective plastic coating, yes. That is all I did at that stage, yes.
--------------------
Note: If Kelly took 1-4 hours to die after the overdose then only 4g of paracetamol should have been in the blood and body fluids, not 8g. If he died almost immediately having taken 29 tablets the stomach concentration should have been much higher. If he vomited out the tablets these should have been found in his vomit.
More from the toxicologist (MR KNOX):
12 Q. I want to ask you about the results, first of all the results of the blood item which you have called NCH47 which I think is the plain blood. Could you tell us what you found there, in NCH47, the blood sample?
16 A. Yes, I found paracetamol at a concentration of 97 microgrammes per millilitre of blood; and dextropropoxyphene at a concentration of 1.0 microgrammes per millilitre of blood.
The tablets contained:
8.4 "Coproxamol which is a prescription only medicine containing 325 milligrammes of paracetamol and 32.5 milligrammes of dextropropoxyphene"
http://www.medsafe.govt.nz/profs/Datasheet/c/Capadexcap.htm
100 microgrammes per ml = 100 milligrams per litre
80 litres of body fluid = 8 grams of paracetamol
325 milligrams per tablet with 30 tablets give
10 grams input.
80 litres of body fluid = 80mg dextropropoxyphene
32.5 mg per tablet = 1 gram per 30 tablets (in normal people only 10% gets into the blood stream).
Dextropropoxyphene has a half life of 6-12 hours paracetamol has a half life of 1-4 hours This means that as time goes on the ratio of dextropropoxyphene to paracetamol must increase. The ratio was still at the level to be expected soon after taking the tablets, in fact the blood levels are as high as they could possibly be suggesting that death occurred within 30 minutes of ingesting the capsules. If this were the case then there should have been evidence of the capsules in Kelly's vomit.
Either the toxicologist was covering up or incompetent or the drugs were given by injection (the dose is fatal if given intravenously, the initial very high dose in the blood then spreads into the tissues masking the murder). If intravenous injection had occurred it would have been at the site of the wrist wounds because no other injection site was found.
So, what was the truth? We do not know: an open verdict is the only safe judgement.
New evidence about the death of Dr Kelly is continuing to appear. For example it now appears that a helicopter appeared on the scene about 90 minutes after Dr Kelly's body was found but this was not mentioned by the police or the Hutton Inquiry ( see Helicopter claim over Kelly death).
The Chilcot Inquiry
The Chilcott Inquiry is beginning to show that the Hutton Inquiry's condemnation of the BBC was entirely wrong. There should now be a condemnation of the Government, especially Blair and Campbell and a retraction of the Hutton Inquiry's condemnation of the BBC.
The Hutton Inquiry's condemnation of the BBC that led to widespread dismissals is summarised below:
"53 I summarise my conclusions on these issues in paragraph 291 of the report as follows:
- "(1) The allegations reported by Mr Gilligan on the BBC Today programme on 29 May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong or questionable before the dossier was published and that it was not inserted in the first draft of the dossier because it only came from one source and the intelligence agencies did not really believe it was necessarily true, were unfounded.
(2) ....The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media....
(3) The BBC management was at fault in the following respects in failing to investigate properly the Government's complaints that the report in the 6.07am broadcast was false that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong even before it decided to put it in the dossier. ....
(4) The e-mail sent by Mr Kevin Marsh, the editor of the Today programme on 27 June 2003 to Mr Stephen Mitchell, the Head of Radio News, which was critical of Mr Gilligan's method of reporting, and which referred to Mr Gilligan's "loose use of language and lack of judgment in some of his phraseology" and referred also to "the loose and in some ways distant relationship he's been allowed to have with Today," was clearly relevant to the complaints which the Government were making about his broadcasts on 29 May, and the lack of knowledge on the part of Mr Sambrook, the Director of News, and the Governors of this critical e-mail shows a defect in the operation of the BBC's management system for the consideration of complaints in respect of broadcasts.
(5) .... However Mr Campbell's allegation that large parts of the BBC had an anti-war agenda in his evidence to the FAC was only one part of his evidence. The Government's concern about Mr Gilligan's broadcasts on 29 May was a separate issue about which specific complaints had been made by the Government. Therefore the Governors should have recognised more fully than they did that their duty to protect the independence of the BBC was not incompatible with giving proper consideration to whether there was validity in the Government's complaints, no matter how strongly worded by Mr Campbell, that the allegations against its integrity reported in Mr Gilligan's broadcasts were unfounded and the Governors failed to give this issue proper consideration. ..... However this was not the correct view for the Governors to take because the Government had stated to the BBC in clear terms, as had Mr Campbell to the FAC, that the report that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong was untruthful, and this denial was made with the authority of the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the JIC. In those circumstances, rather than relying on the assurances of BBC management, I consider that the Governors themselves should have made more detailed investigations into the extent to which Mr Gilligan's notes supported his report. If they had done this they would probably have discovered that the notes did not support the allegation that the Government knew that the 45 minutes claim was probably wrong, and the Governors should then have questioned whether it was right for the BBC to maintain that it was in the public interest to broadcast the allegation in Mr Gilligan's report and to rely on Mr Gilligan's assurances that his report was accurate. Therefore in the very unusual and specific circumstances relating to Mr Gilligan's broadcasts, the Governors are to be criticised for themselves failing to make more detailed investigations into whether this allegation reported by Mr Gilligan was properly supported by his notes and for failing to give proper and adequate consideration to whether the BBC should publicly acknowledge that this very grave allegation should not have been broadcast."
15/1/10
Comments
It makes the conclusion even more ridiculous.
Felix