Yesterday, I stumbled on a new (to me) source of discussion and analysis on the death of Dr. David Kelly: Dr Kelly's Death - Suicide or Murder.
The author is Brian who comments on this blog.
He has two useful timelines of events on his blog:
Search timeline Friday 18 July 2003 (up to 9.20)
and
Event times from body discovery to confirmation of death
It's interesting discussion of the publicly available evidence for someone trying to "make everything fit" or find out if everything does, in fact, fit.
If I get time, I'm hoping to construct a timeline too. My reading of Brian's timelines was simply to identify any obviously "jarring" statements (jarring compared to my own understanding of the evidence). I didn't notice any.
The fact that Brian was already blogging about the death of David Kelly explains his informed comments on this blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Andrew
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your warm words, and for the links to my blog as well!
The more I have read about the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death the more I realised that Lord Hutton's verdict wasn't meeting the criteria of proving suicide beyond all reasonable doubt. Looking at all the evidence that's in the public domain I have to say from my own viewpoint that suicide looks barely credible but the alternative of murder dressed up as suicide also seems barely credible.
What is very clear to me though is how deficient in process the whole Hutton Inquiry was. The actions of Thames Valley Police also displayed inadequacies. It would appear too that the Dr Hunt wasn't beyond reproach. You wrote a very insightful piece the other day about how those we would consider to be the experts aren't monitored and this I also consider is a major problem. When those two reports were published on the internet last month readers might have been tempted to think "these are the professional experts, they were there at Harrowdown Hill, they have to be right". We know of course that it is possible that they may be corrupt, that they may not be up to the job, or that they allow personal prejudice to cloud their judgement.
Reading much that is on the internet regarding Dr Kelly I realise the majority of it is the voicing of personal prejudice without looking at the facts let alone trying to examine matters forensically. Hopefully my blog as is the case of yours will be something of an antidote to the misinformed nonsense that has been published and will highlight the many failings of the official process that followed the death of David Kelly.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteIt would appear too that the Dr Hunt wasn't beyond reproach.
You'll be interestedthen in the article I've just posted about the mysterious "pool of blood" seen, so it seems, only by Dr. Hunt.
Brian,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for your warm words, and for the links to my blog as well!
You're very welcome to the "warm words".
My assessment of your blog was that you were examining the evidence and trying to get to the truth by thinking carefully about what the evidence might mean.
That approach deserves "warm words" in my opinion.
I'm conscious that I only had a fairly quick look at your blog last night. So there may yet be things there that shed new light on the big picture. The problem is finding time to read everything.