Saturday, 11 December 2010

The death of David Kelly - "I'll be found dead in the woods"

In my reading about the death of David Kelly, I'd been under the impression that the statement along the lines of "I'll be found dead in the woods" was single-sourced.

In fact, there appears to be two, seemingly independent, sources for the statement.

The better known is the evidence of David Broucher given to the Hutton Inquiry on the afternoon of Thursday 21st August 2003 at Page 145.

1 A. As Dr Kelly was leaving I said to him: what will happen
2 if Iraq is invaded? And his reply was, which I took at
3 the time to be a throw away remark -- he said: I will
4 probably be found dead in the woods.
5 Q. You understood it to be a throw away remark. Did you
6 report that remark at the time to anyone?
7 A. I did not report it at the time to anyone because I did
8 not attribute any particular significance to it.
9 I thought he might have meant that he was at risk of
10 being attacked by the Iraqis in some way.

The less well known is the statement made by Mai Pederson here: David Kelly's closest female confidante on why he COULDN'T have killed himself.

Mai Pederson comments on this, saying, "He also told me that if we invaded Iraq, he would be found dead in the woods.".

Of course, the question remains open as to whether David Kelly was referring to suicide or murder.

However, the existence of evidence suggesting that David Kelly said this to at least two people seriously undermines Lord Hutton's convenient discounting of the evidence of David Broucher.

Importantly, if one accepts that David Kelly told David Broucher in February 2003 that he would be found "dead in the woods" if Iraq was invaded it means that whatever the motive for David Kelly's death, it was apparent to him as far back as February 2003.

If that's correct, then looking for a Tom Mangold-type melodramatic telephone call on 17th July 2003 is overtly a red herring.


  1. David Broucher's story early on in the Inquiry, which appears quite robust to me, is subsequently discredited first vaguely by Sarah Pape and then more certainly by Rachel Kelly where (as also in the case of the mysterious ejection from Kuwait) retrospective diary entries show that Broucher's version did not accord with the diary entry and that the meeting had to be in 2002 (and that diary entry was produced for this exchange - FAM/1/1 - but is not available for release. I wonder why?).
    (seems to be a reference there to Australian Weapons Inspector Rod B(arton) on 24/3/03 in Washington)
    The evidence from Rachel Kelly is totally unconvining because there is no return date in the diary only an outward flight to the USA, so Dr Kelly could have easily gone to Geneva. One suspects that the diaries are not as complete as is made out. The family then are being used to discredit Broucher whose memory of meeting Dr Kelly earlier that year would have been fairly clear.

  2. the time line is found here for the UN Security Council Meeting, 25-27 Feb. There is no reason why DK would have stayed until the end.
    The only possible motive for Dr Kelly being in Geneva was because there was a SMALL ARMS conference there between 25-28 at which Mr Broucher would have been an attendee, hosted by the Geneva Forum
    25-28 February Group of Governmental Experts on Tracing Small Arms: Informal consultations Small Arms Geneva

    Did Broucher not ask DK what he was doing in Geneva? Why did Mr Dingemans not bother to find out? Would DK have travelled to a small arms conference?? Obviously they were both NOT at the same conference.

  3. Just for completeness -
    An email exchange from DK's computer with Manoocher Samii, dated 25 Feb 2003 says he is in New York "for the week" so can't attend a Baha'i gathering on the evening of Friday 28th Feb 2003
    It would seem computer time is NY time. (as with the Judy Miller "fan club" email of 16 July.