Friday, 26 November 2010

The death of Dr. David Kelly - Creating a false impression of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15th July 2003

One of the interesting aspects of studying the death of Dr. David Kelly is examining whether the "obvious" is true or untrue, supported by a detailed examination of the evidence or unsupported by a detailed examination of the evidence.

One small aspect of the "untrue" is the characterisation in the media of the nature of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee meeting on 15th July 2003.

This post briefly examines the impression created by the questioning shown in the video entitled "Dr. Kelly's Last Interview" from 3:12 onwards.

I have compared the seeming sequence of questions in the video to the actual sequence in the transcript of the Oral Evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 15th July 2003.

The first question shown on the video is the second part of Question 167 (from Andrew MacKinlay MP): "Have you ever felt like a fall-guy? You have been set up, have you not?".

The video then jumps backwards to Question 159 (from Sir John Stanley MP): "You had been before them to rubbish Mr Gilligan and his source, quite clearly?".

The video then cuts to the first part of Question 167 (from Andrew MacKinlay MP): "I reckon you are chaff; you have been thrown up to divert our probing.".

Finally, the video clip cuts to the middle of a long question cum comment, Question 160 (from Sir John Stanley MP): "why did you feel it was incumbent upon you to go along with the request that clearly had been made to you to be thrown to the wolves".

And the video then shows David Kelly seemingly stumped by the question.

However, the transcript records that, in reality, he gave a sensible and diplomatic answer to a difficult question.

By rearranging the questions and, falsely, showing David Kelly seemingly stumped by a question, a false impression is created, wittingly or unwittingly.

That false impression is part of a supposed "basis" for suicide.

1 comment:

  1. In the article by Patrick Wintour, A man broken by events, July 18 2003, we read: MPs had been given a list of questions by the clerk and a running order in which to ask them. The proceedings did not start well for Dr Kelly. David Chidgey, the Liberal Democrat MP - who bizarrely left immediately afterwards - ....
    I still find it astonishing that Wintour still calls Bryan Wells and Wing Commander Clark "policemen".
    Next to me one of the policemen took voluminous notes throughout the hearing with a black felt tip pen and much underlining. With his broken nose, attaché case and intent manner, he did not give the appearance of a policeman who knew his suspect was entirely innocent.

    Dr Kelly would also have been sent the transcript to correct within 2 days, which would mean 17 July. (ref: Peter Oborne, Spectator, 26 July 2003 "The Fall Guy" Did this happen??
    Those who give evidence to Commons committees are customarily sent transcripts of their evidence within 48 hours. These transcripts are always accompanied by heavy warnings about accurate testimony and the need to correct errors

    Was Dr Kelly sent a transcript? If not, why not??