For example, on 26th November 2010 I wrote this post, The death of Dr. David Kelly - Creating a false impression of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15th July 2003, on the basis of an analysis of the transcript of David Kelly's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
Review of the video of his appearance before the committee which is available online as described in this post, The Death of David Kelly - Video of his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, confirmed that while the pressures were non-trivial David Kelly performed well.
Now, I've located a contemporary report, Don't blame the MPs; they perform a crucial role, from Simon Hoggart that confirms my impressions. Hoggart had sat through David Kelly's evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15th July 2003.
Here are a couple of quotes from Simon Hoggart's article.
The impression created is that last Tuesday Dr Kelly left his session with the select committee a broken man, a shell of himself, already headed in his mind towards that Oxfordshire copse.
What nonsense that is!
and
I was there for the whole of the hour Dr Kelly faced the committee, and as he pushed past me at the end to leave the hot and airless room he was smiling, recognising friends and colleagues, clearly relieved the questioning was over, but far from shattered.
Why did the broadcsst media keep repeating the misleading extracts from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee appearance?
Sloppiness? Or directed action?
Professor Keith Hawton seemingly couldn't discern the reality of Dr. Kelly's performance.
The same questions arise in my mind about the failure on Professor Hawton's part.
Was it sloppiness? Or directed action?
I afraid that Dr Kelly may have been involved in giving a false impression to the FAC and ISC but it is understandable to a degree if he had been threatened with his job and pension if he didn’t say what he was “schooled” in.
ReplyDeleteHe told the ISC that there was an absolute prohibition regarding him speaking to the press, he gave the impression that he was not authorised to speak to Gilligan.
But his DSTL Performance and Development Assessment gives a very different view, it was part of his job to speak to journalists, it was one of the objectives he was tasked to do by his manager (communication of Iraq issues externally – mod_3_17.tif.pdf)
He had extensive contact with the media – mod_3_19.tif.pdf
Dr Kelly was made to lie to the Parliamentary committees and when he had said what he was told to say he became an even bigger threat than before.
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/mod_3_0014.tif.pdf
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/mod_3_0016.tif.pdf
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/mod_3_0017.tif.pdf
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/mod_3_0018.tif.pdf
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/mod_3_0019.tif.pdf
This is what Tom Mangold is saying in an article in The Guardian of 21/7/2003:
ReplyDeleteOn Friday Mangold spoke to Dr Kelly's wife, Janice, who explained how angry Dr Kelly had been at the way he was treated by the foreign affairs select committee and that he had felt "physically sick" on his return home.
This is Rachel Kelly at the Inquiry talking about her father that evening:
5 A. He seemed relieved that it was over. I think he was
6 still on some sort of adrenalin high almost. He was --
7 it was -- he was happy to be home and happy to receive
8 phone calls from friends to express how it had gone.
Mrs Kelly, still in Cornwall at this time, makes no mention of her husband being "physically sick" in her evidence at the Inquiry!
Mangold is making it all up. Remember him fantasising about Dr Kelly being called "prat" and "mug" at the FAC? Perhaps he is the scriptwriter for some of the other dramatis personae at the Hutton Inquiry?
ReplyDelete