See 'I'm sure I know the truth about Dr Kelly’s death. But, thanks to Hutton, the world will never be told', his friend reveals.
Witnesses, according to Mangold, made statements to the Coroner but made different statements to Hutton and, in at least one case, gave "anodyne evidence" to Hutton despite, supposedly, having spoken intimately to David Kelly around 48 hours before his death.
Mangold writes:
I know from personal experience that the failure to hold an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death meant that crucial information on his state of mind, deliberately withheld from the Hutton Inquiry on a point of principle, never reached the public domain.
David Kelly was a friend of mine. We also had a close friend in common. Both our mutual friend and I gave statements to the coroner’s officer about
David’s last days. My friend was given the choice of whether his evidence should be referred to Lord Hutton.
Given the fevered state of political debate at the time – remember that BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan had been accused of lying on air about the ‘sexed-up’ dossier – my friend decided that an inquest was the proper forum for his evidence to be heard.
He was uneasy that the Hutton Inquiry did not take evidence on oath and feared it might become a political circus.
Both our testimonies languished, unread, in a dusty coroner’s file. Unwittingly, we had both played into the hands of the conspiracy theorists.
My friend later gave anodyne, uncontroversial evidence to Lord Hutton. We had a long conversation last week and although he insists he must not be named, I can now reveal what was going through Dr Kelly’s mind in the days before he took his own life.
Who was the witness who was a friend of David Kelly, who gave "anodyne evidence" to Lord Hutton yet withheld what, according to Mangold, constituted evidence about intimate discussions with David Kelly 48 hours or so before his death?
I suspect that "Mr. Anodyne" won't remain anonymous for long.
Both Hutton’s and Grieve’s conclusions on Dr Kelly’s death could be described as fatuous if you believe their obnoxious “verdict” was reached through stupidity, ignorance or incompetence. I don’t believe it was, I think what was delivered was the best they could come up with given the facts that are now known and in the public domain.
ReplyDeleteCertainly “fatuous” could be applied to both Hutton’s and Grieve’s response to the question; Does it matter if witnesses disagree about the position in which the body was found? Their response is; well it’s perfectly normal for witnesses to get things mixed up.
That may be true but not when photographic proof exists that the body was indeed moved.
The case for suicide rests on a single assumption; there was no third party at the scene.
The moving of the body, for whatever reason, is proof that there was third party activity at the scene. Now for the suicide verdict to stand the reason for the body being moved must be now known.
Dc Coe said at the Hutton inquiry that the body was lay flat on it’s back, in Aug 2010 in a newspaper interview he admitted that when he first saw the body it had its head and shoulders slumped against a tree (just as described by Hutton from a photo he had seen)
http://www.pressawards.org.uk/modules/entries/images/entries-01011-00568.pdf
The pathologist described the body as lying flat on its back with the head near a tree but not touching (just as shown in the photographs that Grieve refers to)
Photographic proof exists that the body was moved and the first police officer on the scene has changed his story that he gave to the Hutton inquiry; he changed his story to describing the position of the body exactly as the search team say it was in when they saw it.
Coe’s initial description of the position of the body agreed with the position it was in when the ambulance crew attended.
We now know that there is photographic proof that after the search team left but before the ambulance crew arrived, Coe with others moved the body from having it’s head and shoulders against a tree to lying flat on the ground with the head near a tree.
Hutton’s behaviour can no longer be described as fatuous, it is plain and simple corruption and Grieve has decided to further the corruption by withholding the truth and preventing proper investigation. Grieve belongs in the dock not the Attorney General’s Office.
Mangold is playing the same old record, and it doesn't sound any better the third time. No one at the BBC has ever said they were going to announce that his interview with Watts had been recorded. That is just Mangold's invention. As is the following:
ReplyDelete"The main pressure on Dr Kelly was not from the Government, but from his immediate bosses at the MoD who demanded he reveal every contact he had had with journalists."
It was not his "bosses" but Parliament which had sent a Parliamentary Question which required an answer from Dr Kelly about the journalists he had had contact with. And when he sent the e-mail off to the MOD on the morning of 17 July, his sense of humour was intact.
Mangold's entire story is just a red herring. It is barely credible that he claims Dr Kelly would have thought of killing himself as "the only honourable way out."
Geoaunnes,
ReplyDeleteMangold is, I think, just plain wrong about the Susan Watts issue.
On 14th July 2003 David Kelly and his MoD bosses had discussed Susan Watts as a "tricky area". See The Death of David Kelly - Both Dr. Kelly and the MoD knew that Susan Watts was a "tricky area".
The way in which Mr. Chidgey raised the Susan Watts issue on 15th July 2003 may have been a surprise to David Kelly. But he already knew it was a "tricky area" and had discussed that with his managers. And he successfully deflected it on 15th July.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteThat is the whole point. Although the notes Dr Kelly took at the meeting on 14 July were briefly considered by Hutton, the significance of Susan Watts being a tricky area was ignored. Neither Howard nor Wells could have claimed on that date it was tricky unless they knew perfectly well that Dr Kelly had spoken to her. And of course he actually announced that to Patrick Lamb. The reason that it was tricky, in my view, is that no one had ever said a word of protest about Watts's broadcasts. And no one at the MOD had ever said anything sensible about them. If Dr Kelly had admitted to talking to her, the Committee would have been looking for reasons why Blair/Campbell had not bothered about that contact. That's why Dr Kelly was given a very obvious steer against admitting contact to the Committee. Naturally he wouldn't have been expecting the quote that Chidgey read out to him.
Geoaunnes,
ReplyDeleteThe significance of many pieces of evidence were conveniently ignored by Lord Hutton.
As I think I said some time ago the purpose of the Hutton Inquiry was as much to conceal as to reveal.