email from me to Rowena Thursby dated 6 March 2004

christopher frost <z2003@yahoo>
wrote: > Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 01:46:20 +0000 (GMT)
> From: christopher frost <z2003@yahoo>
> Subject: Re: strategies
> To: Rowena Thursby <rowena@onetel>
> CC: stephen.frost@
> 
> Rowena
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, what is "hot" about this story NOW is:
> 
> 1) a group of doctors have had three letters
> published
> in a national broadsheet mainstream newspaper and
> have
> said that they do not accept that Kelly committed
> suicide by the method claimed (by Hunt and Hutton)
> 
> 2) those doctors remain unchallenged
> 
> 3) the coroner, whose job it is to rule out foul
> play
> in sudden unexpected deaths, says he wants to
> achieve
> "closure" at the hearing which he has ostensibly
> convened to decide whether the inquest should be
> resumed
> 
> 4) at the same time, he decides that the doctors who
> have said it was not suicide are not "properly
> interested persons" (when he has the power to decide
> that anybody is "properly interested") but omits to
> put this in writing
> 
> All we need to do, I feel, is to get all our
> correspondence with the coroner published (including
> your first letter and his highly dubious reply to
> our
> second letter).  That would put him in an untenable
> position, bearing in mind 1), 2), 4) (and 3)).  It
> should be pointed out that we have not received a
> proper reply to any of our letters. 
> 
> Additionally: 
> 
> 1) Hutton could not reasonably conclude from the
> evidence he heard, bearing in mind the woefully
> inadequate questioning of witnesses, that Kelly
> committed suicide - crucially he did not, beyond
> reasonable doubt, rule out foul play
> 
> 2) there are only two precedents for an inquest to
> be
> subsumed in a public inquiry : the victims of the
> Ladbroke Grove train disaster and Shipman - neither
> of
> those precedents was politically sensitive
> 
> 3) Hutton lacked the power to call a jury, the power
> to subpoena witnesses and the power to hear those
> witnesses' evidence under oath - all those powers
> are
> available to a coroner
> 
> 4) Hutton had no experience of performing the duties
> of a coroner
> 
> 5) Hutton was appointed by, and reported to, Lord
> Falconer and his (Hutton's) narrow remit was
> determined for him by the latter - he was not
> independent - the coroner "takes orders from nobody"
> (or so I was taught at medical school)
> 
> 6) Hutton was, according to the BBC's lawyers,
> "wrong
> in law" on 12 separate points with regard to his
> judgement on the BBC - was he also "wrong in law"
> with
> regard to his judgement that Kelly committed
> suicide?
> (probably)
> 
> 7) why was the Hutton Inquiry projected as an
> investigation into whether the BBC or the Government
> was responsible for Kelly's "suicide", when nobody
> had
> established that it was suicide?
> 
> 8) why were the press and other media outlets so
> uniformly docile, not mentioning, until our first
> letter had been published, even the possibility that
> Kelly was murdered?
> 
> 9) Kelly was one of the world's leading experts, if
> not the outright leading expert, on biological and
> chemical weapons, and, at the time of his death, had
> questioned, and was perhaps planning to question
> further, the British Government's presentation of
> the
> intelligence used to justify this country going to
> war
> with Iraq - in short, a clear motive existed for
> murder - he knew so much that there is little doubt
> that he could, if he so chose, have brought down
> both
> Blair and Bush singlehandedly
> 
> 10) so, if his position was so sensitive why was he
> not regarded, until proved otherwise, as the victim
> of
> foul play? and why was the investigation of his
> death
> considerably weakened by Lord Falconer's "ordering"
> the coroner to adjourn indefinitely his inquest?
> 
> Finally, the doctors think it highly unlikely 
> 
> (a) that a man of Kelly's intelligence and position
> would commit suicide, 
> 
> (b) that, had he decided to commit suicide, he would
> have chosen the claimed method (particularly in view
> of his area of expertise) and 
> 
> (c) that, had he, against all odds, done so, he
> would
> succeed by completely severing a single small
> artery,
> the left ulnar artery, in the open air.
> 
> Case closed!!!
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Stephen