The Death of David Kelly - How I got involved

I'm not sure that this post is of any great importance but it might provide a human interest angle that makes easier reading than some of my more detailed, lengthy medical or quasi-forensic posts.

Way back in 2003, when I first heard of Dr. Kelly's death I wondered if the suicide story was true or if it was merely a smokescreen for foul play, by whomsoever it may have been carried out.

When Lord Hutton was appointed by Lord Falconer, one of "Tony's Cronies", my suspicicions increased. The universal praise in the media for Lord Hutton as a fair and generally angelic man (I exaggerate, but only a little) felt very much like a Government propaganda effort. If there was nothing to hide, why would they bother?

From a practical point of view, because of distance and other factors, I could at best keep a loose, watching brief. After all, I wasn't an "interested party".

I did try on a couple of occasions to get into the meat of the material on the Hutton Inquiry web site, but it demanded the investment of much time and considerable energy. More than I had available at those times. And I didn't have an intellectual framework into which to fit the morass of detail I read on the Hutton Inauiry web site.

With the release of the postmortem and toxicology reports by the Ministry of Justice on 22nd October 2010, http://www.justice.gov.uk/kelly-pm-toxicology-reports.htm, my interest was given a new impetus because I had training and some level of expertise that would allow me to read each of those reports with, I hope, more insight than many.

When I read the postmortem and toxicology reports I was horrified.

The amount of ill-supported, unsupported or essentially irrelevant conjecture appalled me.

I was very conscious of what I would call the "never mind the quality feel the width" aspects of the reports.

Yes, there was a huge number of things done, but the critical failure as I saw it was the absence of evidence of either the pathologist or the toxicologist asking what I viewed as the key questions.

Did Dr. Kelly commit suicide? Or was he murdered by person or persons unknown who had the skills and motive to make a murder look like suicide? Given all the circumstances, distinguishing those two hypotheses was key, in my view.

If, as I observed, neither the pathologist nor the toxicologist showed signficant evidence of intelligent thinking (as opposed to scientific routine) I could see that a murder could very easily have been overlooked ... or, worse, deliberately concealed.

The gaps in technical data that I had understanding of gave me keys into the huge volume of information in the Hutton Inquiry web site. I had specific questions about the gaps or inconsistencies in the technical data that allowed me to read the mass of oral and other evidence on the Hutton Inquiry web site, with a reasonably clear framework in my mind.

I had hoped to find that the Thames Valley Police investigation would demonstrate attention to the key questions mentioned earlier to a degree not evidenced by Dr. Hunt or Dr. Allan.

To my horror, I read the evidence of Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page.

The absence of intelligent questions from ACC Page appalled me.

Very soon, I arrived at what I might call the "one monkey hypothesis" for ACC Page's behaviour - "Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil".

I formed a provisional view that no senior police officer could be so vague and obtuse as ACC Page without intent.

And, in time, I formed a "big picture" view of what Lord Hutton had done. Again, I was appalled. Some of the concerns I expressed in my open letter of 25th October 2010 to the Attorney General, Open Letter to the Attorney General regarding the need for an inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.

With respect to Lord Hutton, I contrasted the forensic sharpness of which a typical judicial mind is capable with the array of bizarre, casual behaviour on display from Lord Hutton.

I could identify no credible explanation for Lord Hutton's behaviour other than premeditation. I don't believe that he is a stupid man. So, the true explanation had to lie elsewhere.

And, the results, you've perhaps read on this blog. I've tried to ask some intelligent questions. And I've tried to provide some intelligent answers or hypotheses.