Following the release of these statements, BBC statements: Full text, by the BBC on 20th July 2003 many commentators stopped asking the fundamental question, "Who was The Real Source for Andrew Gilligan's assertions on the Radio 4 Today Programme?".
Were those commentators making a big mistake in stopping asking that fundamental question?
Was it intended that they should make precisely that mistake?
Richard Sambrook claimed that David Kelly was "the principal source" but his statement does little or nothing, so far as I can see, to clarify which aspects of Andrew Gilligan's claims may fairly be attributed to David Kelly.
Nor does Richard Sambrook's statement exclude the possibility that the most controversial aspects of the Gilligan claims came from The Real Source rather than from David Kelly ("The Seeming Source").
Let's hypothesise that the BBC statement had the effect of concealing the existence of "The Real Source".
Do any aspects of the David Kelly chronology come into sharp focus?
One oddity that suddenly may make sense is the bizarre expulsion of David Kelly from Kuwait on 19th May 2003. What seems bizarre might suddenly make sense - The Real Source needed David Kelly to be in London to be The Seeming Source for Andrew Gilligan.
It might also cast new light on the "notes" of what David Kelly supposedly said on 22nd May 2003 to Andrew Gilligan but which were found in Andrew Gilligan's electronic organiser dated 21st May 2003. One can hypothesise that Gilligan and The Real Source discussed on 21st May 2003 what David Kelly was supposed to say the following day.
With the Foreign Affairs Committee (on 15th July 2003) and the Intelligence and Security Committee (on 16th July 2003) clearing David Kelly of being "the source", there emerges a very real risk that The Real Source will be searched for and maybe exposed.
But who might he or she be?
Someone with substantial political / intelligence clout.
Could someone in the UK arrange for David Kelly to be expelled from Kuwait? They could, if they have sufficient clout.
Could someone arrange for David Kelly to be murdered? They could, if they have sufficient clout.
If this hypothesis is correct then it explains the "need" to murder David Kelly on 17th July 2003. I acknowledge that the hypothesis contains many speculative elements but what other hypothesis explains the need for the murder of David Kelly on 17th July 2003?
If The Real Source exists then he / she is not a small player.
In all likelihood if some, in due time, take a fall for the murder of David Kelly or the subsequent conspiracy to conceal that murder then it won't be The Real Source.
People like The Real Source always elude responsibility.
But, with a great deal of luck, it's just possible that the Real Source might be exposed. There may be a first time even for something so improbable.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteI have always maintained that we are dealing with some very clever people. There was a moment…..and it was only a brief moment during Dr Kelly’s ferocious questioning by that motley crew of parliamentarians that we all saw on our televisions where for once in his life Dr Kelly looked lost.
If you have it on video then play it back, play it over and over again, you will see what I mean. What Dr Kelly had been doing in talking to journalists was clearly sailing very close to the wind in terms of Official Secret Act etc, but I believe he had too much integrity to cross the line.
Suddenly during questioning Dr Kelly realised that he was going to take the blame for far more than he was guilty of and he didn’t have a leg to stand on. At that point his only defence was his remark that he was not the only source, but it was too late. He WAS a source and for the committee that was enough.
Whoever set this up was very smart, they used Gilligan, they used Susan Watts and then all they had to do was let those idiot politicians do the rest. It looked like David Kelly had been caught out by a committee of idiots and for a man of his intellect that must have hurt.
Frank
Frank,
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to the incident supposedly portrayed as referred to in the following post?
See The death of Dr. David Kelly - Creating a false impression of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15th July 2003.
Also a couple of further questions.
When you refer to "idiot politicians" what do you mean?
What do you mean by "for the committee that was enough"?
Rightly or wrongly, the Foreign Affairs Committee cleared David Kelly of being Andrew Gilligan's principle source. Contrary to the impression created by the media, the FAC were angry because (rightly or wrongly) they believed that David Kelly had been set up. They weren't angry at Kelly; they were angry at how he had been treated.
"Having now informed Dr Kelly's family.......we did not release it until this morning" (Sunday).
ReplyDeleteSambrook can only have written bbc/6/0234 around mid-day on the Satuday as Gilligan/Hewitt were sending in their special requests, which implied that they knew that a statement was going to be made before the body had been formally identified (allegedly)....
Wonder what Ms Watts makes of it all? She hired her own lawyer at Hutton.
I think Watts was used but, Gilligan? Was he working for MI6?
Q (from Campbell) Is that source on the JIC and do you agree that any source not on the JIC did not have the full picture? -
A. (Sambrook) I do not intend to say anything more about our source. You well know that it is a matter of principle for us not to reveal our sources . I will do nothing to help you in this regard .
(from BBC/3/0003-12)
Interestingly there is a sigificant redaction in BBC/5/0113.
What is BBC/5/0178 all about?
Felix,
ReplyDeleteBBC/5/0178 is a very interesting document.
The sofa conversation referred to appears to have taken place before the invasion of Iraq.
Even then, so it seems, MI6 were expressing doubts about the "intelligence".
Andrew
ReplyDeleteBBC/6/0234 is rather strange,without heading. Was the Saturday afternoon typing pool at the BBC using carbon copies? Also, I wonder what the enc. was????
Interesting that on Sambrook's Wikipedia page one sees currently the phrase "apparent suicide".
Video of Sambrook discussing his career here
Also interesting is that Sambrook's Wikipedia entry starts at 17.37hrs, 20 July 2003
Felix,
ReplyDeleteThe enclosure should have been a copy of the statement that the BBC released the following day. I linked to the text of that statement at the beginning of the post to which these comments relate.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThis whole event is theatre.
You need to take your doctors and your detective’s hats off for a few minutes and see things as an ordinary lay person might.
The impression created by Dr Kelly’s appearance on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15th July 2003 is exactly what I mean, this image of Dr Kelly seeming to falter when being questioned has painted a picture in people’s minds that will take a lot of displacing. It is the first and a very important part of the whole theatre. Mrs Kelly's statements as to her husband’s state of mind in the few days before he died are the next bit of theatre. So when his body was found suicide was the obvious verdict.
However if we could find the real source the whole thing would look very different.
Frank
Thanks, Andrew (re statement) . It seems reasonable, but I would have thought the statement as sent (enc) on 19 July to Mrs Kelly was an obvious piece of BBC Evidence at the Hutton Inquiry website - which it wasn't. Was it the same statement?
ReplyDeleteThe internal memo at BBC/6/0259 is timed 14.49hrs, relating to release earlier that day.
Frank - by idiots, I read not in the loop.
Felix,
ReplyDeleteThe communication to Mrs Kelly is dated 19th July 2003.
The communication to BBC managers is dated 20th July 2003.
I wonder if you'd assumed the dates of the two communications were the same?
Frank,
ReplyDeleteYou're right that the picture in the minds of the public created re the Foreign Affairs Committee appearance will take some shifting.
But, Step 1 is to show that the impression is false as I did in the earlier post.
Very possibly, the shaping of the media reports of the FAC appearance to create just the desired false impression wasn't entirely spontaneous.
While very plausible in my view, it doesn't directly help in identifying "The Real Source".
Andrew, I did realise that - I was going to add a PS to clarify.
ReplyDeleteAndrew,I am minded that the meeting recorded in BBC/5/0178 refers to that strange and highly secretive conference held at the Chancery Court Hotel ,252 High Holborn London WC1 between 13-15 September 2002 (around the time of Gilligan's "boat trip") and pre-Government dossier (the dates include a Saturday) Who is redacted? Him or her? C?
ReplyDeleteTHe IISS dossier referred to in the text had already been issued by then (9 September).
Incidentally, did you notice that Richard Sambrook uses the phrase apparent suicide in his Wiki entry? Clearly he doesn't believe it, because I fail to see living people allowing things on their page they don't agree with for very long!
Andrew
ReplyDeleteRe Sambrook's letter to Mrs Kelly. There is an interesting "tie-up loose ends" piece of evidence from DS Geoff Webb of Didcot CID at the Hutton Inquiry.
"What time did you leave Dr Kelly's house?
A. On that day I left at 1520, that is 20 past 3 in the afternoon, although I was required to return for two brief visits at 11 minutes past 4 and 3 minutes to 5.
Q. What was the purpose of those visits?
A. The first visit I am not sure of, but the second visit was we had been asked to return because the MoD welfare officer wished to visit Mrs Kelly to inform her that she was to receive a letter that evening which was to be delivered by courier.
This must be the Sambrook letter BBC/6/0234. So, the Ministry of Defence has been told by the BBC that the BBC is writing to tell Mrs Kelly on Saturday afternoon, 19 July, that her husband is the single source. One might speculate what the MoD welfare officer was.
So, was DS Webb commuting to an fro between the house and Harrowdown Hill? He can't remember the reason for the first trip back (extraordinary in itself). It must be somewhere close by.
Sorry I am getting mixed up (previous post) - it was DC Coe who came on the Saturday. DS Webb was only present on Friday 18 July.
ReplyDeleteSo the couriered letter is not the BBC one, but from the MoD. Was it part of the Hutton Inquiry evidence? I think not!
This letter delivered by courier is fascinating because there had been no body identification apparently at this time. So what was in it?
ReplyDelete