The email was sent to Mr. Kevin McGinty of the Attorney General's Office.
As indicated in the email to the Attorney General I believe that there are several relevant strands to that cover-up and I expect to send further communications to the Attorney General laying out the relevant summary evidence of cover-up.
The title of the email was:
The David Kelly Cover-up - Overview
The text of the email was:
Mr McGinty,
This email is intended for the attention of the Attorney General in connection with a possible application to the High Court that an inquest be held into the suspicious death of Dr. David Kelly.
In this email I express outline concerns that the murder of Dr. David Kelly in 2003 has been covered up. I anticipate providing detailed supporting evidence in subsequent communications.
In an interview in August 2010 the Attorney General expressed the following directly relevant comments:
"I have no reason to think, absolutely no reason to think, and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest, that there has been some cover-up in respect of the circumstances of Dr. Kelly's death."
I hope, in this and succeeding emails, to persuade the Attorney General that his former view was incorrect.
The Attorney General went on to say in the same interview:
"If there is evidence [of a cover up] then my office is the place to send it to."
The interview with the Attorney General to which I refer is available online here:
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/2010/08/19/R19081001/?s=Dominic+Grieve+Kelly&st=0&pn=1
.
In sending to the Attorney General this email and others in the "David Kelly Cover-up" series, I'm taking the Attorney General at his word and sending to him what I believe to be evidence of the cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.
I ask the Attorney General to review the evidence of a cover-up in 2003 and 2010/11 that I submit here and in accompanying emails with a view to a formal investigation or investigations which may include consideration of criminal proceedings against a number of individuals (some of whom I can name on the basis of available evidence and some of whom are currently not readily identifiable) for perversion of the course of justice and/or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
In addition, a thorough fresh Police investigation into the murder of Dr. David Kelly is, in my view, essential.
I have previously sent a significant number of communications to the Attorney General laying out detailed evidence indicating defects in the Hutton Inquiry which may designated as "insufficiency of inquiry" and "rejection of evidence".
In those communications I have also expressed how, on the basis of detailed consideration of the totality of the evidence, I have reached the conclusion that Dr. David Kelly was murdered.
See, for example my communication to the Attorney General of 22nd November 2010 entitled "Death of Dr. David Kelly - Evidence that it was murder" (online at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2010/12/death-of-david-kelly-evidence-that-it.html ) and "David Kelly - Blood distribution indicates it was murder" of today's date (online at http://chilcotscheatingus.blogspot.com/2011/06/death-of-david-kelly-blood-distribution.html ).
As a result of the care that I have taken to examine that evidence and to compose those communications I hope I do not have to persuade the Attorney General that the concerns that I express in the series of emails in the "The David Kelly Cover-up" series arise from a serious, detailed and, I hope, logical examination of the publicly available evidence relating to the death of Dr. David Kelly.
Equally, given the seriousness and potential criminality of the cover-up which I believe to have taken place I understand that the Attorney General will wish carefully to consider the totality of evidence before arriving at a view as to whether or not a cover-up has taken place (and is still taking place) and what action, if any, the Attorney General has a duty to take.
I do not attempt definitively in this email or related emails in the "The David Kelly Cover-up" series to differentiate the following possibilities (or examine whether some other possibility is true):
1. A cover-up was carried out to avoid the risk of public disclosure of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.
2. A cover-up was carried out to avoid the risk of an open verdict.
The political imperatives for each have broad similarities. Either an open verdict or an unlawful killing verdict at an inquest might have brought down Tony Blair in the Autumn of 2003 (the likely timescale of an inquest), given, for example, the mounting evidence that there were no WMD in Iraq.
It seems to me that actions which cover up what the evidence suggests to be the murder of Dr. David Kelly may constitute, at a minimum, "irregularity of proceedings" in the meaning of Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988. And, in the sense that a cover-up suppresses examination of some evidence, then the cover-up also arguably resulted in "rejection of evidence" and "insufficiency of inquiry" in the meaning of Section 13.
Additionally, it seems to me that some of the acts of omission and/or commission in the cover up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly are such as to constitute the criminal offence of perversion of the course of justice, at least in the definition that the Crown Prosecution Service publicly indicates that they use.
Contrary to the assertion of the Attorney General that "There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that there has been a cover-up of the circumstances surrounding Dr. Kelly's death", there is, in fact, a significant body of evidence indicating that there has been such a cover up.
Provisionally, I anticipate sending to the Attorney General several documents by email covering topics including the following:
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Lord Falconer
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Lord Hutton
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Nicholas Gardiner QC
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Thames Valley Police in 2003
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Thames Valley Police in 2010/2011
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Dr. Nicholas Hunt
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Professor Keith Hawton
* The David Kelly Cover-up - Dr. Malcolm Warner
In the emails in the preceding list I anticipate putting forward what I believe to be a significant body of evidence of a cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly and indicate several possible instances of prima facie evidence of what seems to me to be perversion of the course of justice.
Following Prime Ministers Questions in the House of Commons on 18th May 2011 I do not exclude the possibility that a further name will require to be considered as having, wittingly or unwittingly, contributed to the continuing cover-up of the murder of Dr. David Kelly.
Similarly, I do not exclude the possibility that some individuals may have unwittingly carried out actions (or omitted to act as required by circumstances) with the effect of assisting the cover-up. Where I can provisionally differentiate between witting and unwitting actions or omissions I will endeavour to do so.
At the risk of stating the obvious my concerns are personal to me, however soundly founded they may seem to be on the evidence.
I ask the Attorney General to consider the evidence of a cover-up in the context of a possible application to the High Court.
In addition, I ask the Attorney General to use any investigatory powers that he may have diligently to inquire further into the evidence of cover-up.
The definitive assessment of the validity of my concerns regarding perversion of the course of justice should be established by a thorough, diligent and honest Police inquiry as a first step.
If the Attorney General does not have relevant investigatory powers, I ask him to request a Police force, other than Thames Valley Police, to carry out a thorough investigation into these matters and to produce a fully documented report to be placed in the public domain, consistent with any limitations temporarily required in relation to any potential prosecutions.
Without a publicly demonstrated thorough investigation into the death of Dr. David Kelly and the subsequent cover-up of that murder the concerns about Dr. Kelly's death and its cover-up will most certainly not go away.
I would be grateful if you would confirm receipt of this email and that the information contained in it will be drawn to the attention of the Attorney General. I would, of course, welcome being kept informed should the Attorney General ask for a Police investigation to be carried out into these matters.
Thank you.
(Dr) Andrew Watt
There has definitely been one crime committed, that of cover up (conspiracy to pervert the course of justice) and very likely a second crime of murder.
ReplyDeleteThe mass of evidence for cover up is undeniable; the body was moved and police were present when it was repositioned. The police lied about the position of the body, they lied about which police officers were first on the scene and when they attended.
Crucial evidence and witnesses were kept away from the inquiry and ACC Page lied about fingerprints on the dental records and lied about Mai Pederson not giving a statement.
There has been an obvious cover up performed mainly by Thames Valley Police but not restricted to them presumably for political reasons because it was the government that prevented a proper inquest and investigation into the death of Dr Kelly.
But the evidence for murder is not as great, indeed the cover up itself is evidence of murder but not proof. There is proof of cover up but not murder.
The possibility of it not being murder is remote and even the cursory of investigations would reveal if it was. So for those that don’t have the facts about how Dr Kelly met his death there remain a number of potential scenarios albeit fanciful
1) Dr Kelly died somewhere else by unknown causes, natural causes, accident, manslaughter or suicide, the body was transported to Harrowdown Hill and the scene was made to look like suicide at Harrowdown Hill.
2) Dr Kelly was murdered or subjected to an ordeal by security forces that caused Dr Kelly’s death. (Resistance to Interrogation / Conduct after Capture exercise) and so the suicide story was concocted.
The weakness in these scenarios other than murder is the planning aspect. Dr Kelly’s death appears to have been planned, not very well, but planned never the less. Operation Mason beginning half an hour before he went for a walk and nearly 9 hours before he was reported missing. Lord Hutton being appointed on the day that the body is found, before it had been formally identified. And Mr Blair being informed on an airplane flight that Dr Kelly had gone missing.
Also the presence of Coproxamol in the body and 3 blister packs on the body would suggest that if this was anything but a genuine suicide then the persons who set the scene knew in advance of the availability of this drug in the Kelly home.
The cover up, to me, is a more serious crime than the potential murder. Police Officers, Civil Servants and Politicians have worked in unison to block justice, prevent investigation and refuse a proper inquest.
They have shown complete contempt for our justice system.
I think Dominic Grieve made a huge mistake when he made his public plea for evidence of cover up, what I think he meant to say was evidence murder. Mr Grieve now has a mountain of evidence of cover up and most of the suspects have been identified to him.
The Attorney General holds proof that police officers and others have conspired to pervert the course of justice, a crime that can attract a life sentence.
I am sure those that committed the offences feel relaxed that they will not be prosecuted for their actions, they will have immunity from prosecution because they were following orders. The people issuing the orders and controlling the cover up will not be able to use the same defence and so the Chief police officers involved along with the senior politicians, civil servants and special advisors who masterminded the cover up better start hoping that Cameron’s government is as corrupt as Blair’s and Grieve has as much clout as Goldsmith.
A comment I posted the other day has been praying on my mind with regard to the one I made above, I will reproduce it here
ReplyDelete“LORD HUTTON: Mr Allan, if a third party had wanted paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene to be found in Dr Kelly's blood is there any way that the third party could have brought that about by either persuading or forcing Dr Kelly to take tablets containing those two substances?
A. It is possible, but I think it would be –
LORD HUTTON: That is the only way that those substances could be found in the blood, by taking tablets containing them?
A. Yes, he has to ingest those tablets.
LORD HUTTON: Yes. Thank you very much indeed.
MR DINGEMANS: Assistant Chief Constable Page, please.
ASSISTANT CHIEF CONSTABLE MICHAEL PAGE (called)”
IF Dr Allan was going on to say that the drug could have been administered by a tube and IF that could have been done after death then there remains a real possibility that this is in fact manslaughter or accidental death made to look like suicide. Certainly Lord Hutton did not want Dr Allen’s “possibility” aired at his inquiry
Dr Kelly had proved himself to be a security risk and the government / security services may have felt there was a legitimate reason to test Dr Kelly's ability to retain secrets if he were to be captured in Iraq and interrogated about what he knew.
These exercises do take place and they are not very pleasant experiences for the subject.
If Dr Kelly was picked off a country lane and subjected to an I2R ordeal this combined with the recent stress he had been under and his heart disease may have induced a cardiac arrest.
Bruising to his chest may indicate that CPR may have been performed.
What were the security forces to do? Take him to hospital? Go and dump him back on the lane where they found him? Or panic?
The 2.30pm start time for Operation Mason would indicate the abduction exercise began when Dr Kelly SAID he was going to go for a walk. The police had been alerted so as not react if a member of the public reported someone being bundled into a vehicle on a country lane.
If Dr Kelly's death was not intentional what followed next would be pure, unscripted panic.
And if you read the story with that narrative in mind, it all makes sense in a weird way.
Sorry for I2R above read R2I (resistance to interrogation)
ReplyDeleteLL
ReplyDeleteIt is well worth, as you highlight, studying the interjections by Lord Hutton during the examination by the barristers. There is a deep purpose to them, that of enforcing the official narrative, bringing witnesses back on track and, as in this case, to throw the gullible scribes of the mainstream media off the scent.
It seems blindingly obvious to me that the body levels of the congeners of co-proxamol and their metabolites have been anything but orally created during life and Lord Hutton's question was to nip this possibility in the bud.
An interesting scenario,too, which might explain the bizarre behaviour of Dr Hunt taking a rectal temperature 4 whole minutes before departing the inner cordon at nearly 7.30pm. Might third parties have somehow conspired to produce a false reading in order to put time of death forward many hours? Is that possible?
Felix,
ReplyDeleteThere is good reason to question the time of death. I've been intending for some time to post on that and hope to do so in the next few days.
The plasma/blood/urine concentrations of the metabolites of paracetamol and dextropropoxyphene weren't measured so making it impossible to model whether or how it might be possible to postulate oral dosing.
The possibility remains open that the components of co-proxamol were administered by injection.
LL,
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how Lord Hutton, by his interjection/interruption, leads Dr. Allan to give an answer which is false.
It is possible that David Kelly didn't swallow any co-proxamol.
Dr. Allan couldn't truthfully state as an absolute what Lord Hutton led him to say.
And, since Dr. Allan failed to measure dextropropoxyphene in the stomach, he has no direct evidence that David Kelly swallowed any co-proxamol.
LL,
ReplyDeleteThe correct label for the cover-up depends on whether or not there has been a murder.
As you're aware, my view is (as is yours) that the evidence in favour of David Kelly having been murdered is strong.
Then we need to look for elements of the crime of perverting the course of justice e.g. concealment of evidence. To my mind the evidence of that is clear in several cases.
And, finally, to establish that there has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice you would need to demonstrate collusion, I think.
My opinion is that there has been a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. I'm not sure that I can confidently demonstrate that yet.
I'm not sure that it is necessary to demonstrate a "conspiracy". Individuals perverting the course of justice are still committing a criminal offence.