tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post255483775377106163..comments2023-10-02T15:01:43.213+01:00Comments on Chilcot's Cheating Us: David Kelly Judicial Review - Module 3 - Conclusion contrary to logic and the evidence with respect to the supposed absence of third partiesAndrew Watthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03829322263100808179noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-37533799340919410582011-09-01T09:17:05.372+01:002011-09-01T09:17:05.372+01:00Page gave his evidence regarding Pederson on the a...Page gave his evidence regarding Pederson on the afternoon of 23rd Sept 2003<br /><br />This from<br /><br /> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050919/David-Kellys-closest-female-confidante-COULDNT-killed-himself.html<br /><br /><br />Ms Pederson’s Washington DC lawyer, Mark Zaid, has made available to The Mail on Sunday parts of her final statement to Thames Valley Police, given on September 1, 2003<br />Its ten pages would appear critical, since they describe Iraqi death threats and the incident with the laser. She also stated that she was bewildered about how Dr Kelly could have taken an overdose, as he suffered from a disorder that made it difficult for him to swallow pills.<br />‘I was so confused when I heard he had swallowed a load of painkillers,’ she told the officers. <br />She also emphasised in the statement that he suffered from pain and problems ‘grabbing things with his right hand, which he attributed to breaking his elbow’.<br />Police have implied that she did not give them permission to give her statement to the Hutton inquiry. But in fact she stipulated: ‘If specific information [in the statement] is deemed relevant to the coroner’s inquiry into the death of David Kelly, I am willing for Thames Valley to reveal the information in a non-attributable way.’<br />However, her statement was never given to the inquiry. The then Assistant Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, Michael Page, testified that it ‘contained nothing of relevance’.<br />After the inquiry, Ms Pederson started to get death threats. ‘Some were from nuts,’ she said. But others, she believes, may have been related to her sensitive work with Dr Kelly in Iraq. And she spoke on condition that we do not reveal her whereabouts.<br />‘I can’t say for sure that David was murdered,’ she said. ‘But his life had been threatened because he strived to do what was best for humanity. <br />‘He deserved more from his country than an investigation that overlooked the fact that his right hand was so weak that he had problems cutting a piece of steak.’LancashreLadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635388809036821102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7713282434144514700.post-79486710943915994552011-09-01T08:44:57.099+01:002011-09-01T08:44:57.099+01:00From memory ACC Page misled the Hutton Inquiry on ...From memory ACC Page misled the Hutton Inquiry on a number of points; eg who first requested the helicopter, where it came from and where it was based and his request for it to be redeployed was ignored. Page’s account of police officers searching the area of Harrowdown Hill before the body was found was contrary to the officers in charge of the search (Franklin and Sawyer).<br /><br />In ACC Page’s second appearance at the inquiry he said “Based on the extensive inquiries that we have undertaken thus far, I can find no evidence to suggest any criminal dimension to Dr Kelly's death.” There is evidence that the body was moved and further evidence this has been covered up, this I suggest is evidence of a criminal dimension.<br /><br />Page is asked about Mai Pederson;<br /> “Yes, we interviewed Mia Pedersen. She declined to give a statement as such but I have a record of the interviews that took place.<br />Q. Were you able to obtain any relevant evidence from her?<br />A. The conversation with Mia Pedersen added nothing that was of relevance to my inquiry at all.”<br /><br />This was a lie, Pederson had given a 10 page statement and it contained very relevant evidence. There may be more lies in Page’s evidence but I think it is established, without doubt, that Page’s evidence cannot be trusted.LancashreLadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05635388809036821102noreply@blogger.com