Today I added to that correspondence by drawing the Attorney General's attention to the possibility that Dr. Kelly was held in a "safe house" against his will at some time in July 2003.
I further asked the Attorney General to examine the possibility that Janice Kelly and Tom Mangold may have perverted the course of justice in light of possible deficiencies in the oral evidence that they, respectively, gave to the Hutton Inquiry.
As I pointed out to the Attorney General I am not in a position definitively to answer such questions. However, I very much hope that the Attorney General will act so as to uncover the truth relating to all aspects of what I believe to have been the murder of David Kelly and about the subsequent cover up of that murder.
The email was sent to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.
The title was:
David Kelly - Evidence that he may have been kidnapped
The text of the email was as follows:
I would be grateful if you would draw this communication to the attention of the Attorney General in the context of previous correspondence in which I draw the Attorney General's attention to the need, on the basis of multiple criteria in law (as expressed in Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988), for an inquest to be held into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly in July 2003.
I write to draw the Attorney General's attention to possibly new evidence suggesting that Dr. David Kelly may have been held against his will in a "safe house" at some time in July 2003, or thereby. Further, it seems to me that there may be prima facie evidence that there may have been "insufficiency of inquiry" and/or "irregularity of proceedings" with respect to inquiries by Lord Hutton and/or by Thames Valley Police relating to this matter.
Briefly, it appears that Janice Kelly stated on the morning of 18th July 2003 that David Kelly had been held in a "safe house" at some time shortly before his death.
I summarise the sources for the statement attributed to Janice Kelly here:
No oral evidence was, so far as I can trace, given to the Hutton Inquiry on this potentially very serious matter.
My understanding is that contemporary evidence is, unless compelling criteria indicate otherwise, accorded very high credibility.
So far as I can establish, the "safe house" statement attributed to Janice Kelly was propagated on 18th July 2003 within approximately six hours of her having, supposedly, made the statement. On the basis of timing it seems to me that the "safe house" statement should be accorded very high credibility.
Clearly, I cannot directly corroborate or disprove the "safe house" story. However, it seems to me that the Attorney General, either directly or via an appropriate Police force (or Police forces), is in a position to establish the facts regarding this new evidence and has a duty to do so.
It seems to me that both Thames Valley Police and Lord Hutton each had a duty fully to examine this evidence, given that the "safe house" statement was in the public domain while their respective investigations were taking place.
I am unable to trace any evidence in the public domain that either Thames Valley Police or Lord Hutton adequately investigated this matter.
If Thames Valley Police and Lord Hutton failed by reason of unawareness, incompetence or other reasons, to investigate this evidence it seems to me that this is further evidence of "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988. A competent and diligent coroner would have instructed Thames Valley Police to establish the facts on this matter. So far as I can trace, Lord Hutton failed to do so.
If Thames Valley Police and/or Lord Hutton were aware of the evidence but chose not to examine the issue in the way that would reasonably be required that seems to me to be serious "irregularity of proceedings" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988. A coroner of integrity would not have acted in such a way.
If Thames Valley Police and Lord Hutton were genuinely unaware of this contemporary evidence of "kidnapping" of David Kelly then there seems to me to be "discovery of new facts or evidence", in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988.
Whichever of the options stated in the three preceding paragraphs is correct, it seems to me that there may be a further basis re the grounds expressed in Section 13 of the Coroner's Act 1988 that the Attorney General seek an order from the High Court that an inquest be held into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
It further seems to me that, if the "safe house" story is true, both Janice Kelly and Tom Mangold failed to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry that is satisfactory in terms of accuracy and completeness.
If my conclusion (expressed in previous correspondence to the Attorney General) is correct that David Kelly was murdered (see http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-of-david-kelly-evidence-that-it.html in the public domain, for example) then it seems to me that there is a case for investigating whether the possible insufficiency of evidence of Janice Kelly and Tom Mangold given to the Hutton Inquiry is sufficiently deficient that it might constitute perverting the course of justice.
Given that there is prima facie evidence that David Kelly may have been held against his will, I would further suggest that there may be a duty attaching to the Attorney General to report this possible crime to the relevant Police force(s) in order to ensure that the matter is, possibly for the first time, fully investigated.
I would be grateful if you would confirm that the Attorney General will consider the content of this communication in the context of his consideration of the need for inquest into the death of Dr. David Kelly.
I would be grateful if the Attorney General would inform me of the steps he has instituted to ensure that the possible crimes of kidnapping and perverting the course of justice to which I draw his attention in this email are fully and appropriately investigated by the relevant Police force(s) in order to establish the truth of the matter.
As the Attorney General is aware, I have reported to Thames Valley Police (URN514 of 28/10/10) my belief that Dr. David Kelly was murdered. I am copying this email to Chief Constable Sarah Thornton, Deputy Chief Constable Francis Habgood and Assistant Chief Constable Helen Ball of Thames Valley Police.
(Dr) Andrew Watt
If D Kelly was at a safe house, I'm not sure it was against his will. According to Mr Gompertz closing statement at the Hutton inquiry, Geoff Hoon had come up with a plan.ReplyDelete
""GH said his initial instinct was to throw the book at him but in fact there was a case for trying to get some kind of plea bargain."
The bargain suggested by the family is that there would be no formal disciplinary proceedings and therefore no risk of loss of employment, pension rights or security status provided Dr Kelly gave evidence to
the Select Committees in accordance with the directions or steers with which he would be provided."
"There is further support of the proposed deal which I have mentioned to be found in the entry for 15th July in Mr Campbell's diary, where there is reference to, and
I quote, "MoD assurances ... he was well schooled",meaning that Dr Kelly had been instructed in how to answer questions before the FAC."
If this coaching did take place it would necessarily mean that Dr Kelly went along with it in order to keep his job and pension. The Cornwall time frame would seem the likely period this coaching took place.
Q Why would the government want to “school” Dr Kelly in his responses to the committees?ReplyDelete
A Because they could not afford him to tell the truth.
Dr Kelly had already proved himself to be unreliable to the Blair government, by sacking him and removing his pension would only make him a greater threat, Dr Kelly was Britain’s greatest expert in biological warfare, he knew secrets regarding Britain’s and the US’s biological warfare capabilities that simply both governments could not afford to be divulged.
The choreographed drama of Dr Kelly’s “suicide” began with Andrew Gilligan seeking a meeting with Dr Kelly what happened next was a wonderful diversion to the wot no WMD dilemma . Two birds with one stone?
"He was less worried about that one [the Security & Intelligence Committee ,16th July], less worried about that.[than the (televised) Foreign Affairs committee"
(thought to self - who decided it would be televised?)
" I think it was on this day [Monday 14th July 2003] that he said that somebody had told him over the phone while we were down in Cornwall that Jack Straw, who he had supported a few weeks earlier at the Foreign Affairs Committee --
Q. I think that was some time in September 2002."
"Jack Straw had said he was upset at the technical support at that Committee meeting, he had been accompanied by somebody so junior."
This is absolute nonsense , if one reads the transcript of the FAC on 25 Sept 2002 when the dossier is discussed, and reads who else was at that meeting and what was said, because all the questioning is on Straw and at only one juncture does Straw turn to Kelly and ask him to confirm something.
At that meeting, David Kelly CMG was accompanied by Edward Chaplin CMG,then FCO Director Middle East/North Africa and subsequently ambassador to Iraq, and William Ehrman KCMG who was then deputy chairman of the JIC and DG for Defence & Intelligence at the FCO. A star studded cast, one day after Tony Blair's speech to the Commons see here et seq painting a frightening picture of Iraq's WMD. Ehrman only makes one contribution (to Al Quaeda arrests etc) and so too does Mr Chaplin.
Interestingly, David Kelly does not feature (apart from in a mention of the Hutton Inquiry) in the Annual Report 2003-4 of the Intelligence and Security Committee after giving evidence on 16 July 2003.
It is instructive to read the squirming,hand-wringing account given to the Hutton Inquiry by Patrick Lamb on 24 September.ReplyDelete
Lamb's answers are quite implausible - shadows in doorways, mobile phones switched off(though the MoD seemed to be able to get through, with whom Lamb worked very closely.
Anyway, this is how the exchange goes....
Q. Did you succeed in speaking to him on 14th July?
A. I did. He, I believe, called in first to speak to my colleague Colin Smith and I was aware that he had called and Colin gave me a brief account of the conversation and his impressions of Dr Kelly's overall state of mind or attitudes and so on. And I asked Colin to ask David Kelly if he would value a telephone conversation with me. David Kelly indicated that he did and as a result I put through a call to him, I think at around 3.30/4 o'clock in the afternoon of the 14th July. I should add that even in the calls on the 10th 11th and on 14th July, and without any full knowledge of anything that has subsequently occurred, I was aware that those telephone calls could technically put me in some difficulty insofar as there could be -- it could be construed that I was in some way either trying to coach or in any way in some way assist or determine exactly what he was going to say. I was aware of those possible complications but decided to go ahead anyway. That was not the purpose of my call. My call was to express personal sympathy and support for him.
Yuck. This does seem to fit in with Lancashire Lad's suspicions.