by Dr. C. Stephen Frost and Dr. David Halpin and Dr. Chris Burns-Cox | |||||||
 | |||||||
Global Research, July 15, 2007 | |||||||
| |||||||
"Where the law ends, tyranny begins" John Locke Just as Uncle Sam is busy shredding the constitution, so too is John Bull over here in the UK. But there is little concern being registered in the mainstream media, which subtly reinforce casual disregard for our laws. Dr David Kelly was found dead on Harrowdown Hill four years ago. This is made prominent by the recent "abdication" of Mr Anthony Blair, and the publication of the diaries of his aide, Mr Alastair Campbell, seemingly transcribed and selected by the author himself. The death is spoken of as 'suicide' by almost all servants of the fourth estate. That the inquest was adjourned and never completed is not a cause for any wavering. The verdict has been assumed and so it stands. There are many instances of this slide towards the whisper and the nods of ignorant agreement. The night after 52 persons met their deaths by bombing in London two years ago, Anthony Blair declared at the G8 summit that "a public inquiry would be ludicrous". Really? There has been no judicial response to these four atrocities, and yet it is widely accepted, including by "civil rights" spokespeople, that "radicalised" Muslims were the culprits. The piece below underlines some central facts in the United Kingdom's handling of Kelly's high profile and unnatural death. Nothing was right about the ensuing investigation. So, Alastair Campbell feels partly responsible for the death of Dr David Kelly (BBC's Sunday AM programme, 8 July 2007), and says that it was "the worst period of my life". In Will Woodward's piece on the Campbell diaries (Guardian, 9 July 2007), it is stated that "Mr Campbell has held back until today extracts covering the period for which he is most famous, the dispute with the BBC in 2003 which led to the suicide of the government scientist David Kelly". Further, Woodward states that "Kelly was the source of a story which the reporter Andrew Gilligan used to claim that the government had "sexed up" a dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction". It is probably true to say that Woodward's interpretation of the David Kelly fiasco has become the official mantra, and that to this day not a single dissenting voice has been heard in the mainstream media. This is inexcusable, for, at the heart of the David Kelly affair, lies an indisputable story of blatant subversion of due process of law in the United Kingdom, due process of law being itself the very basis of "democracy", which system we purport to be in a position to export to the rest of the world. In a series of six letters published by The Guardian in 2004, one letter published by The New Statesman in 2005, and a long article published by Global Research on the Internet in November of last year, we (doctors and lawyers) have attempted to draw to the attention of the world these facts (amongst others): 1) Dr David Kelly's death has not been the subject of a proper inquest, as required by English law. Indeed, his sudden, violent and suspicious death has not been properly investigated, as required by European law. 2) In English law, in order for a verdict of suicide to be returned, suicide must be proved to a criminal level of proof, that is beyond reasonable doubt, a very high level of proof. 3) Lord Hutton, in his inquiry (which purported to obviate the need for an inquest), possessed none of the statutory powers automatically available to a coroner, and crucially he could not, and did not, hear evidence under oath. He therefore was unable to prove anything, let alone suiicide which is notoriously difficult to prove in the absence (as in this case) of a suicide note. Our serious and legitimate concerns have never been answered. There is no doubt that the Hutton Inquiry descended into attempting to establish who, between the BBC and the Government, was responsible for the "suicide" of Dr David Kelly, when from the outset "suicide" had been assumed wrongly and inexcusably by all (but a very few), including by Lord Hutton, when "suicide" was never proven. Thus, regrettably, we conclude that the Hutton Inquiry was indeed a "whitewash", not only on its conclusions with regard to the BBC and the Government, but much more importantly in its failure to establish in the proper manner exactly how Dr David Kelly died. It appears to us that the Hutton Inquiry was no more than an elaborate cover up which sought to mislead the British public and the world about something as important as the cause of death of a man who was inextricably linked to, and beginning to question, America's and the United Kingdom's purported reasons for waging aggressive war on a sovereign state, Iraq. All this of course amounts, quite apart from all the other implications, and arguments to be had, to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, and the question has to be asked why such a high risk strategy in such a high profile case was considered necessary. We are talking of nothing less serious than the possibility of political murder and cover up of same in a leading Western democracy, the United Kingdom. Surely, it is imperative that a full and proper inquest is conducted without further delay into the death of Dr David Kelly, to attempt to remove once and for all the huge stain which the David Kelly affair has left on the reputation of this country? Related Articles by Drs. Frost, Halpin and Burns-Cox Our doubts about Dr Kelly's suicide http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1131833,00.html Medical evidence does not support suicide by Kelly http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1146232,00.html Questions still unanswered over Dr Kelly's death http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,,1151352,00.html Reopen the inquest into Kelly's death http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/mar/15/david.kelly.inquestNew doubts over Kelly http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,,1314212,00.html Questions over Kelly http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,,1378539,00.html Due process and the Kelly inquest http://www.newstatesman.com/200505020027 "Sexed up" Report on the Death of David Kelly: Lord Hutton Findings challenged by Medical Doctors http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3988 | |||||||
Tuesday, 31 May 2011
No Inquest into the Death of Dr. David Kelly: The Elephant in the Living Room of the United Kingdom
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
"Sexed up" Report on the Death of David Kelly: Lord Hutton Findings challenged by Medical Doctors
by Dr. C. Stephen Frost and Dr. Christopher Burns-Cox and Dr. David Halpin
Global Research, November 28, 2006
| 1diggdigg |  | 6Share |
Global Research Editorial Note
On November 3, 2006, The Times published a letter by Lord Hutton, in which he attempted to defend his report on Dr. David Kelly's death. In the letter, Lord Hutton dwells on the issue of the allegedly "sexed up" intelligence, ignoring the arguably much larger issue of his failure to establish exactly how Dr. David Kelly died.
The inquiry purported to obviate the need for an inquest. Suicide was seemingly assumed from the outset by Lord Hutton, and the Hutton Inquiry descended into establishing who, between the BBC and the Government, was to blame for the suicide of Dr Kelly. But, crucially, suicide was never proved, either by the Coroner or Lord Hutton, as required by law.
Whether or not the intelligence was sexed up (itself a serious enough matter) was, astonishingly, as it turns out, when viewing the whole, something of a side issue. It was completely missed by the mainsteam media that Hutton, who seemingly assumed suicide from the outset, thereby undermining due process, laid himself open to charges of cover-up, by himself "sexing up" his own findings on the cause of Dr David Kelly's death. But, a cover-up of what? What was so important to hide that such an elaborate cover-up, if that is what it was, was deemed necessary, given the huge inherent risks?
A response to Lord Hutton's letter to The Times was hurriedly drafted and submitted to The Times by three distinguished doctors. However, The Times refused to publish the letter, and declined to give a reason.
We bring to the attention of our readers the text of the letter which the Times refused to publish.
It is important to note that two of the authors of this letter, Drs. C. Stephen Frost and David Halpin (together with Dr Searle Sennett) succeeded in breaking the mainstream media silence on the possibility that Dr David Kelly did not commit suicide, by having a letter published in The Guardian on 27 January 2004 (see link in Annex), the eve of publication of the Hutton Report. The letter directly led to the splash headline "Was Dr Kelly Murdered?" in The Evening Standard later the same day, though the doctors had not suggested that. Later that evening, despite unprecedentd security to prevent such a leak, the Hutton Report was duly leaked to the Sun. Thus, instead of The Evening Standard headline becoming the main story in the mainstream media the next day (the very day on which the Hutton Report was published), the leak to The Sun became the main story. Lord Hutton and Tony Blair were said to be incensed by the leak, and an inquiry was immediately ordered to identify the source of the leak. Some months later, that inquiry's report was quietly published and was hardly noticed; it said that it had not been possible to establish the source of the leak. Not surprisingly, many suspect that the source of the leak was none other than 10 Downing Street itself. The original three doctors were subsequently joined by other doctors, and lawyers, and, as a result, five more letters appeared in The Guardian in 2004, and one in The New Statesman (2 May 2005), just prior to the 2005 General Election.
The original November 3 letter by Lord Hutton to the Times is reprinted in Annex, together with links (in chronological order) to the texts of the letters of Dr. Frost et al. published in The Guardian and The New Statesman.
TEXT OF RESPONSE TO LORD HUTTON
by Drs. Stephen Frost, Christopher Burns-Cox and David Halpin
On November 3, 2006, The Times published a letter by Lord Hutton, in which he attempted to defend his report on Dr. David Kelly's death. In the letter, Lord Hutton dwells on the issue of the allegedly "sexed up" intelligence, ignoring the arguably much larger issue of his failure to establish exactly how Dr. David Kelly died.
The inquiry purported to obviate the need for an inquest. Suicide was seemingly assumed from the outset by Lord Hutton, and the Hutton Inquiry descended into establishing who, between the BBC and the Government, was to blame for the suicide of Dr Kelly. But, crucially, suicide was never proved, either by the Coroner or Lord Hutton, as required by law.
Whether or not the intelligence was sexed up (itself a serious enough matter) was, astonishingly, as it turns out, when viewing the whole, something of a side issue. It was completely missed by the mainsteam media that Hutton, who seemingly assumed suicide from the outset, thereby undermining due process, laid himself open to charges of cover-up, by himself "sexing up" his own findings on the cause of Dr David Kelly's death. But, a cover-up of what? What was so important to hide that such an elaborate cover-up, if that is what it was, was deemed necessary, given the huge inherent risks?
A response to Lord Hutton's letter to The Times was hurriedly drafted and submitted to The Times by three distinguished doctors. However, The Times refused to publish the letter, and declined to give a reason.
We bring to the attention of our readers the text of the letter which the Times refused to publish.
It is important to note that two of the authors of this letter, Drs. C. Stephen Frost and David Halpin (together with Dr Searle Sennett) succeeded in breaking the mainstream media silence on the possibility that Dr David Kelly did not commit suicide, by having a letter published in The Guardian on 27 January 2004 (see link in Annex), the eve of publication of the Hutton Report. The letter directly led to the splash headline "Was Dr Kelly Murdered?" in The Evening Standard later the same day, though the doctors had not suggested that. Later that evening, despite unprecedentd security to prevent such a leak, the Hutton Report was duly leaked to the Sun. Thus, instead of The Evening Standard headline becoming the main story in the mainstream media the next day (the very day on which the Hutton Report was published), the leak to The Sun became the main story. Lord Hutton and Tony Blair were said to be incensed by the leak, and an inquiry was immediately ordered to identify the source of the leak. Some months later, that inquiry's report was quietly published and was hardly noticed; it said that it had not been possible to establish the source of the leak. Not surprisingly, many suspect that the source of the leak was none other than 10 Downing Street itself. The original three doctors were subsequently joined by other doctors, and lawyers, and, as a result, five more letters appeared in The Guardian in 2004, and one in The New Statesman (2 May 2005), just prior to the 2005 General Election.
The original November 3 letter by Lord Hutton to the Times is reprinted in Annex, together with links (in chronological order) to the texts of the letters of Dr. Frost et al. published in The Guardian and The New Statesman.
Global Research, 28 November 2008
TEXT OF RESPONSE TO LORD HUTTON
by Drs. Stephen Frost, Christopher Burns-Cox and David Halpin
Dear Sir
Lord Hutton presided over an inquiry which sought to apportion blame between the BBC and the Government for the "suicide" of Dr David Kelly when no "verdict" of suicide had been (and still has not been) reached. His report was widely labelled a "whitewash", because he was perceived to apportion that blame unfairly (given the evidence he had heard), all but exonerating the Government, and placing the blame almost entirely on the BBC. Now, in his letter published in the Times (3 November 2006), he seemingly seeks to defend his report by setting out his case re the minutiae of the "45 minute claim".
Lord Hutton misses the essential point. What is more, it appears that he was used by the Government to subvert due process in establishing precisely how Dr Kelly died. We and several other medical colleagues (and lawyers) attempted in a series of six letters published in The Guardian and one in the New Statesman to inform the public, and the mainstream press, that all doctors learn at medical school that, in order to return a "verdict" of "suicide", a coroner must prove suicide beyond reasonable doubt (a very high level of proof), including "intent" to commit suicide, also beyond reasonable doubt. If the Coroner cannot achieve the necessary level of proof, he is required by law to return an "open verdict", assuming that "foul play" has at the outset been excluded in the proper manner. Unfortunately, there is some doubt as to whether "foul play" was properly excluded in the case of Dr Kelly. However, disregarding any such failure in such a high-profile death, it is important to understand that the public was invited to believe that Dr Kelly's death would be better investigated at the Hutton Inquiry than at a coroner's inquest, when the exact opposite was the case.
Lord Hutton possessed none of the powers normally available to the Coroner. He could not (and did not) hear evidence under oath, he could not subpoena witnesses, he could not aggressively cross-examine witnesses, and he could not call a jury. Not enough with that, his inquiry was an "ad hoc" inquiry, not a public inquiry (as the public and the press were led to believe) subject to the provisions of the Public Inquiries Act !921 (itself quietly repealed last year and replaced by the Inquiries Act 2005). Lord Hutton was invited (and consented) by Lord Falconer (the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for Constitutional Affairs) to conduct an inquiry on the very day that Dr Kelly's body was allegedly found. Later, Lord Falconer, used his powers as Lord Chancellor to invoke Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners' Act and order the Oxfordshire Coroner, Mr Nicholas Gardiner, to "adjourn indefinitely" his inquest. But, Section 17a had become law on 1 January 2000, largely, it is believed, at the instigation of Lord Falconer. Its purpose was allegedly to obviate duplication of inquiry following multiple death scenarios (eg train disasters), when the cause of death could to some extent be assumed. But, Dr Kelly's death was a solitary death. In addition, Lord Hutton's remit and powers (since it was an "ad hoc" inquiry) were determined by Lord Falconer. Lord Hutton's remit was extremely narrow (and Lord Hutton seemingly sought to narrow it further), and his powers were very limited, so limited in fact that Lord Hutton could not prove anything, let alone "suicide". After all, Lord Hutton was directed by Lord Falconer to do no more than "inquire into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly", and it appears that establishing the cause of Dr Kelly's death was not viewed as a priority. But, the cause of the death should have been THE priority in an inquiry which eventually purported to obviate the need for a full inquest.
Despite all this, the Coroner, Mr Nicholas Gardiner, on 16 March 2004, thought fit to conclude that there was no "exceptional reason" for him to re-open the Inquest, and even deferred to Lord Falconer by saying that he (Lord Falconer) was happy with the findings of Lord Hutton, and then went on to say "and so am I". Given the obvious "insuffiency of inquiry" re the cause of Kelly's death over which Lord Hutton presided, he (the Coroner) should not have been sharing in Lord Falconer's happiness. In addition, the Coroner was surely extremely unwise to talk to the Mail on Sunday some weeks before his final hearing in March 2004, saying that he wished to achieve "closure" at his coming hearing, and hinting at that stage that he could see no "exceptional reason" to re-open the Inquest.
Apparently, it is unprecedented for judges to discuss publicly their findings, as Lord Hutton has done, not once, but twice. But, then, it is unprecedented for the Government to lead the public to believe that a "verdict" of suicide has been reached, and the Inquest "closed", when no such verdict could be reached, and for that reason the Inquest could not be closed.
Dr David Kelly is the first British citizen to be denied an inquest in such circumstances. Given the clear "insufficiency of inquiry", regarding the cause of death over which Lord Hutton presided, the Coroner should have re-opened the Inquest. There are unconfirmed reports that he (the Coroner) now regrets that he did not do so. It is our view that if the Coroner is not able at this late stage to reverse his decision, a fresh inquest should be ordered.
Yours faithfully,
C Stephen Frost,
BSc MB ChB Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology (Stockholm, Sweden)
MD FRCP
David Halpin,
FRCS
ANNEX:
Text of Lord Hutton's letter to The Times
Sexed-up means just what it says and no more
From Lord Hutton
The Times, London, 3 November 2006
Sir,
Your summary (report, Nov 1) of my report into the death of Dr David Kelly was too brief to give an entirely accurate description of my finding in respect of the alleged "sexing up" of the September 2002 dossier.
On May 29, 2003, Mr Andrew Gilligan, the BBC defence correspondent, reported (inter alia) on the Today programme the allegation that "the Government probably knew that that 45 figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in...Downing Street, our source says, a week before publication ordered it to be sexed up, to be made more exciting and more facts to be discovered".
He went on to say: "Our source says that the dossier, as it was finally published, made the intelligence services unhappy because, to quote the source, he said there was basically unhappiness because it didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward".
In the evidence to my inquiry the Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service and four other members of the Joint Intelligence Committee stated that the dossier was issued with the full approval of that committee. There was no evidence that the very senior figures in British Intelligence who gave evidence to the inquiry had taken part in a conspiracy with the government to mislead the country by inserting intelligence in the dossier which was known or believed to be wrong. Therefore, I found that the allegation reported by the BBC that "the Government probably knew that the 45 figure was wrong even before it decided to put it in" was unfounded.
In paragraph 220 of the report I stated: "The term 'sexed-up' is a slang expression, the meaning of which lacks clarity in the context of a discussion of the dossier. It is capable of two different meanings. It could mean that the dossier was embellished with items of intelligence known or believed to be or unreliable to make the case against Saddam Hussein stronger, or it could mean that while the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense then, because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government 'sexed-up' the dossier. However, having regard to the other allegations contained in Mr Gilligan's broadcasts of May 29 I consider that those who heard the broadcasts would have understood the allegation of 'sexing-up' to be used in the first sense which I have described, namely that the Government ordered that the dossier be embellished with false or unreliable items of intelligence...Therefore, in the context of Mr Gilligan's broadcasts, I consider that the allegation that the Government ordered the dossier to be 'sexed-up' was unfounded."
Brian Hutton
House of Lords
Links to Letters by Drs. C Stephen Frost, Christopher Burns-Cox, David Halpin and Searle Sennett, et al.
published in The Guardian and the New Statesman:
Our doubts about Dr Kelly's suicide
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1131833,00.html
Medical evidence does not support suicide by Kelly
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,13747,1146232,00.html
Questions still unanswered over Dr Kelly's death
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,,1151352,00.html
Reopen the inquest into Kelly's death
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/mar/15/david.kelly.inquest
New doubts over Kelly
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,,1314212,00.html
Questions over Kelly
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,,1378539,00.html
Due process and the Kelly inquest
http://www.newstatesman.com/200505020027
Monday, 30 May 2011
The seventh letter published in The New Statesman
Letters - Due process and the Kelly inquest
Published 02 May 2005
Further to John Pilger (25 April), mistrust in the present government is not exclusively owing to the lies, distortions and distractions surrounding the Iraq WMD claims and the legal advice. Government deceit extends also to the investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly. Why did Lord Falconer choose a method of inquiry which was specifically designed to be invoked for multiple deaths, in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of inquiry, as in a rail disaster? Kelly's death was a solitary unnatural death, requiring rigorous investigation at a coroner's inquest.
Lord Hutton judged that Kelly had committed suicide. There is a statutory legal requirement, pertaining to the investigation of "sudden, unexpected, and violent" deaths, that, before a verdict of suicide can be returned, suicide must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Intent to commit suicide must also be proven, again beyond reasonable doubt. That is a very high standard of proof. Lord Hutton was not equipped to attain it. He lacked the necessary statutory powers: to subpoena witnesses, to hear evidence under oath, to call a jury and to have witnesses cross-examined. These are all available to the coroner. The public was encouraged to believe that the replacement of the coroner's inquest by the Hutton inquiry would lead to Kelly's death being more thoroughly investigated. The exact opposite was the truth. Falconer, Hutton and the coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, may protest all they like. Due process has not been followed in the investigation of one of the most important unnatural deaths to occur here in our lifetimes.
As medical specialists, we stated our view, in letters published by the Guardianin 2004, that it is highly improbable that Dr Kelly could have died by the method claimed by Lord Hutton. The serious and legitimate questions we raised remain unanswered, and there have been no demands from the media, MPs or others that they be answered. Why not?
Martin Birnstingl
Specialist in vascular surgery
Christopher Burns-Cox
Internal general medicine
C Stephen Frost
Diagnostic radiology
David S Halpin
William McQuillan
Both trauma and orthopaedic surgery
Andrew Rouse
Public health
John H Scurr
Vascular surgery
Specialist in vascular surgery
Christopher Burns-Cox
Internal general medicine
C Stephen Frost
Diagnostic radiology
David S Halpin
William McQuillan
Both trauma and orthopaedic surgery
Andrew Rouse
Public health
John H Scurr
Vascular surgery
Post this article to
The sixth letter published in The Guardian
Letters
Questions over Kelly
Dr David Kelly is the first British citizen whose sudden, unexpected and violent death has been denied an inquest. Three weeks after Dr Kelly's body was found, Lord Falconer ordered that the inquest into his death be adjourned indefinitely and subsumed into a public inquiry by invoking section 17a of the Coroner's Act 1988.
The section is designed to avoid duplication of inquiry in cases of multiple deaths where the cause of death can, to some extent, be assumed from the outset. But Dr Kelly's was a solitary death coming amid a political storm concerning doubts over the government's case for war with Iraq, and its cause required rigorous investigation. The Hutton inquiry had no power to call a jury, subpoena witnesses or cross-examine them under oath.
Disquiet expressed recently by paramedics over finding very little blood at the scene of Dr Kelly's death gives credence to our view that it is highly improbable Dr Kelly died of haemorrhage from a transected ulnar artery. From such a wound he would have lost only about a pint of blood, and for death to occur he would need to have lost some five pints. And Co-Proxamol levels in his blood were one-third of what is normally regarded as a fatal dose.
In his report, Lord Hutton confirmed that he had seen a photograph of Dr Kelly lying with his head against the base of a tree. Two volunteer searchers stated they found Dr Kelly's body slumped against a tree. Yet the paramedics who arrived later, and five other witnesses, including the forensic pathologist, reported that the body was flat on its back a foot from the tree. Police photographed the body in this position. Given that there is photographic evidence showing the body in two different positions, it must be determined who moved the body, and when and why.
The law requires a verdict of suicide to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Why should Dr Kelly's death receive less scrutiny than any other sudden, unexpected and violent death? As things stand, suicide has not been proved, and we still do not know how he died.
Dr Michael Powers QC
Martin Birnstingl
Specialist in vascular surgery
Chris Burns-Cox
Specialist in internal general medicine
C Stephen Frost
Specialist in diagnostic radiology
David Halpin
Specialist in orthopaedic and trauma surgery
William McQuillan
Specialist in orthopaedic and trauma surgery
Andrew Rouse
Consultant in public health
John Henry Scurr
Specialist in vascular surgery
Searle Sennett
Specialist in anaesthesiology
rowenathursby@onetel.com
Martin Birnstingl
Specialist in vascular surgery
Chris Burns-Cox
Specialist in internal general medicine
C Stephen Frost
Specialist in diagnostic radiology
David Halpin
Specialist in orthopaedic and trauma surgery
William McQuillan
Specialist in orthopaedic and trauma surgery
Andrew Rouse
Consultant in public health
John Henry Scurr
Specialist in vascular surgery
Searle Sennett
Specialist in anaesthesiology
rowenathursby@onetel.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)