David Kelly: Major investigation has cast doubt on the official verdict that he committed suicide
Alarming new questions about the death of Iraq weapons inspector David
Kelly have been raised as a major investigation cast doubt on the official verdict
that he committed suicide.
The inquiry by campaigning MP Norman Baker will spark renewed speculation about
how the Government's leading expert on weapons of mass destruction was found
dead in a field in Oxfordshire three years ago.
In particular, the dossier compiled by the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes shows
that the method of suicide said to have been chosen by Dr Kelly, far from being
common as was claimed at the time, was in fact unique.
Dr Kelly was the only person in the United Kingdom that year deemed to have
died from severing the ulnar artery in his wrist, a particularly difficult and
painful process as the artery is deep and Dr Kelly had only a blunt garden knife.
The MP reveals that the Oxfordshire coroner held an 'unusual' meeting with
Home Office officials before he determined the cause of Dr Kelly's death.
And he claims that a 'cosy cabal' of Mr Blair's friends, including Peter Mandelson
and Lord Falconer, the Lord Chancellor, hand-picked Lord Hutton, a retired Law
Lord from Northern Ireland, to lead the official investigation in 2003.
Writing exclusively in The Mail on Sunday, Mr Baker insists it is time to question
the findings of the Hutton report. He says: "I challenge the conclusion
on the basis that the medical evidence cannot support it, that Dr Kelly's own
behaviour and character argues strongly against it and that there were grave
shortcomings in the legal and investigative processes set up to consider his
Dr Kelly's body was found shortly after he was named as the source for a BBC
report which claimed Downing Street 'sexed up' the official dossier on Saddam
Hussein's chemical and biological arsenal.
The six-month inquiry that followed concluded that the pressure of being exposed
prompted the scientist to take his own life through a combination of an overdose
of painkillers and slashing his wrist.
I believe David Kelly did not commit suicide - and
I will prove it
By Norman Baker MP
The weapons inspector’s death, three years ago this month, caused
a firestorm of controversy. Now this MP – using parliamentary questions,
privileged access and forensic analysis – has mounted his own investigation,
and it casts a devastating new light on what really happened.
Three years ago, one of those events occurred that suddenly and dramatically
change the political landscape. Dr David Kelly, the UK's leading weapons inspector,
was found dead under a tree on Harrowdown Hill, Oxfordshire. An inquiry set
up under Lord Hutton duly found that Dr Kelly committed suicide.
Today I challenge that conclusion. I do so on the basis that the medical evidence
available simply cannot support it, that Dr Kelly's own behaviour and character
argues strongly against it, and that there were serious shortcomings in the
way the legal and investigative processes set up to consider his death were
After months of intensive enquiry, I reveal new evidence which:
· Shows that the alleged method of suicide chosen, far from being
common, was in fact unique. Dr Kelly was the only person in the whole of the
UK in 2003 deemed to have died in this way
· Reveals irregularities in the actions of the coroner, relating to
the issuing death certificate.
· Proves that the pathologist chosen by the coroner to investigate
the death had been on the Home Office approved list for just two years, less
than almost all the other 43 approved pathologists.
· Raises questions about the actions taken by the police who attended
Dr Kelly's house when he was reported missing, actions which a very senior
police officer told me were bizarre.
· Uncovers the cosy cabal of friends of Tony Blair who hand-picked
Lord Hutton, and why, and who fixed the rules for his inquiry
The weeks leading up to Dr Kelly's death in 2003 had been charged and eventful.
In mid-March, British and American forces had invaded Iraq. Saddam Hussein was
deposed and on May 1, US President George Bush declared 'mission accomplished',
a claim that rings rather hollow now. Then, on May 29, came the allegations,
broadcast by the BBC, that the intelligence information about Iraq, which in
an unprecedented move the Government had decided to release, had been 'sexed
up' to make the case for war stronger, particularly with the assertion that
Saddam could have chemical or biological ready to fire within 45 minutes.
No 10's director of communications, Alastair Campbell, went ballistic and launched
a blistering attack on the BBC, determined in particular to wreck the career
of Today programme reporter Andrew Gilligan. David Kelly had provided Mr Gilligan
and others in the BBC with much of the ammunition for the claim that the dossier
released by the Government to justify war had been presented in a way that stretched
the available intelligence to breaking point. He, along with others in the know,
was deeply unhappy about the added spin.
In the end, to further the Government's vendetta with the BBC, the Ministry
of Defence and No 10 acted to ensure Dr Kelly's name became public. He was thrust
into the unwelcome glare of publicity and made to appear in a Soviet-style televised
appearance before the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.
The standard explanation then was that Dr Kelly, a very private man, felt humiliated
by this process and let down by the MoD, and he recognised that his actions
in speaking to journalists would bring his career to an effective end. They
would certainly prevent him from returning to Iraq to do what he did best and
enjoyed most uncovering hidden weapons and weapons programmes, so making the
world a safer place. And so, according to this view, he left his cottage in
Southmoor, walked into the woods and took his own life through a combination
of wrist injuries and an overdose of the painkiller co-proxamol. A personal
tragedy but nothing more. Case closed.
Except I never subscribed to this conclusion. There were too many unanswered
questions, none of which was resolved by the Hutton Inquiry As time has gone
by, those questions have gnawed away at me. And I am not alone. In January 2004,
three doctors - David Halpin, a specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery,
Stephen Frost, a specialist in diagnostic radiology, and Searle Sennett, a specialist
in anaesthesiology - voiced their doubts about the suicide verdict in a letter
to The Guardian. They said Dr Kelly could not have killed himself in the way
described to the Hutton Inquiry. Now, having resigned my frontbench role for
the Lib Dems earlier this year, I have found the time to conduct my own investigation.
The first problematic area concerns the severed artery in Dr Kelly's wrist.
Those who are familiar with the human body will, if they choose to die this
way, make an incision the length of the inside forearm because this leads to
a very large loss of blood. Those unfamiliar with the body may cut across the
wrist, thereby severing the radial artery. Instead, we are asked to believe
that Dr Kelly managed to completely sever the ulnar artery, a minor artery of
matchstick thickness to be found deep in the wrist on the little finger side
of the hand, and protected by nerves and tendons.
It is difficult to believe Dr Kelly would have made this cut. It would have
requlred unusual force to cut through the nerves and tendons, particularly with
the gardening knife he had, and the process would have been painlul. Even if
he did somehow cut this artery himself; it is quite clear that this would not
have killed him. I spoke to David Halpin, the former senior orthopaedic and
trauma surgeon at Torbay Hospital and The Princess Elizabeth, Exeter. He told
me that even the deepest cut here would not have caused death. He also told
me that 'a completely transected [severed] artery retracts immediately I and
thus stops bleeding, even at a relatively high blood pressure'.
Then there is the evidence of the ambulance team who attended the scene where
Dr Kelly was found. They told the Hutton Inquiry that the amount of blood found
at the site and on Dr Kelly's clothing was minimal and surprisingly small.
I contacted Dave Bartlett, the ambulance technician who, with paramedic Vanessa
Hunt, formed the team that attended the scene. He told me last month that the
two of them 'stand by what we have already said 100 per cent'. Vanessa Hunt
has said that, in her view 'it is incredibly unlikely that he died from the
wrist wound we saw'.
Could Dr Kelly nevertheless have died from the blood he lost? I tracked down
Dr Sennett and his response was clear:
'For a man the size of Dr Kelly to die from haemorrhage, he would have to lose
at least three litres of blood. I suggest that it would be impossible to lose
a lethal amount of blood from an ulnar artery which had been cut in the manner
described for Dr Kelly.'
Were these doctors right? I wanted to know how many people in the UK died in
2003 from injury to the ulnar artery. I eventually received a formal reply from
the National Statistician, Karen Dunnell. The answer? One. Presumably Dr Kelly.
There is also the knife allegedly used for the purpose. This was a blunt gardening
knife with a concave blade, a singularly inappropriate weapon to use. To cut
through nerves and tendons with such a knife must have been difficult. Dr Kelly,
with his scientific background and knowledge of the human body, could without
doubt have found an easier way to commit suicide had he wished to do so.
It might be argued that this was a spontaneous suicide and that all he had
with him was this particular knife, which he often carried. But that is contradicted
by the presence of the coproxamol tablets, which, according to the official
explanation, demonstrate premeditation.
This circle simply cannot be squared.
Evidence presented at the Hutton Inquiry invites us to conclude that Dr Kelly
removed three blister packs of these tablets, each containing ten tablets, from
his house. The police say that they found 29 out of 30 tablets gone, implying
therefore that Dr Kelly had consumed these.
It strikes me as odd that Dr Kelly should apparently leave one of the 30 tablets
in its place. Surely someone set on suicide will take the maximum dose avallable,
not leave one? Of course this remaining tablet did present the police with a
rather obvious clue.
Furthermore, Alexander Allan, the forensic toxicologist at the inquiry, considered
that the amount of each drug component found in the blood was only a third of
that which would normally be considered fatal. All that was found in Dr Kelly's
stomach was the equivalent of the fifth of one tablet. His stomach was virtually
empty, which suggests that even if he did swallow 29 tablets, much would have
been regurgitated, making it even less likely that these contributed in any
significant way to his death.
Interestingly, those who knew Dr Kelly well maintain that he had an aversion
to swallowing tablets.
What about the motive? Wasn't Dr Kelly terribly depressed, potentially even
suicidal? Those who knew him find that very difficult to accept.
Sarah Pape, his sister, is a consultant plastic surgeon. Referring to conversations
with her brother before his death, she told the Hutton Inquiry:
'In my line of work I deal with people who may have suicidal thoughts, and
ought to be able to spot those, even in a telephone conversation. But I have
gone over and over in my mind the two conversations we had and he certainly
did not betray to me any impression that he was anything other than tired. He
certainly did not convey to me that he was feeling depressed, and absolutely
nothing that would have alerted me to the fact he might have been considering
Of course, these were difficult times for Dr Kelly. He was under enormous pressure,
had been thrust into the glare of the public spotlight, and had had a torrid
time in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee on July 15, just two days before
he went for his last walk. That much is known. Less well known is that his good
humour and confidence had at least partly returned on July 16, when he gave
evidence in private to the Intelligence and Security Committee. I have read
the transcript of that meeting and it shows Dr Kelly laughing and even making
Then there are the e-malls he sent on the morning of July 17, the day' of his
disappearance. These were generally upbeat and talked enthusiastically about
returning to Iraq.
So apparently were his phone calls, for after one to the Ministry of Defence,
a flight to lraq was booked for him for the following week. One e-mail, however,
did refer to 'dark actors playing games'. Who they were, and what games they
were playing, has yet to be established. Another factor that mitigates against
the suicide theory is that one of Dr Kelly's daughters was due to be married
shortly and he was obviously looking forward to that.
Lastly, it should not be forgotten that Dr Kelly was a practicing member of
the Baha'i faith, which strongly condemns the act of suicide.
Yet within 24 hours of the e-mails being sent, David Kelly was dead. We had
lost the man who had probably done more than anyone else to reduce the threat
to the world from biological and chemical weapons.
But with a cruel asymmetry; while Dr Kelly lay dead under a tree, Tony Blair,
the mouthpiece of the now discredited 45-minute claim, was being feted by President
Bush and being offered the rare honour of a Congressional Medal. The Prime Minister
was on a plane from Washington to Tokyo when he was told of Dr Kelly's death.
His response was immediate. Before the journey was over, Lord Brian Hutton had
been appointed to head an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death
of Dr David Kelly'.
How was this breakneck-speed appointment made? Parliament had no say in this.
With perfect political timing for the Prime Minister, the Commons had adjourned
for its long summer recess at 4.55pm on July 17, just hours before Dr Kelly's
body was found. The decision to hold an inquiry; the remit given to it and the
choice of the judge to chair it were all decisions for the Government. I have
now had it officially confirmed that it was Blair's old friend Charlie Falconer,
the Lord Chancellor, who handpicked Lord Hutton, having discussed the matter
first with the Prime Minister and formally consulted the Senior Law Lord.
Why choose Lord Hutton? In a parliamentary answer to me, Harriet Harman, the
Minister at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, confirmed that he had
not chaired any public inquiry before he was asked to undertake this most sensitive
There is no suggestion that Lord Hutton is anything other than an independent
person of integrity; but his record may have suggested to those choosing him
that he would be likely to produce the right result.
In Northern Ireland, where he sat as a judge, he sentenced ten men to a total
of 1,001 years' imprisonment in 1984 on the word of a paid informer who was
granted immunity from prosecution. As a senior barrister, he had also defended
the Government of the day against allegations that internees in Northern Ireland
had been tortured. More recently, he led the campaign against the extradition
of General Pinochet back to Chile on the grounds that one of the five Law Lords
involved in the case had links with the human-rights group Amnesty International.
As Sir Humphrey observed in an episode of [the BBC's] 'Yes, Minister', you
don't choose a judge who can be leaned on. You choose one who doesn't have to
Whatever the reason, it is clear that what should have been a rigorous investigation
into the death of Dr Kelly turned out to be nothing of the sort.
First, the Lord Chancellor decided the inquiry should not, as expected, be
held under the rules established by the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act
1921. The significance of this is that witnesses could not be subpoenaed. Nor
did they have to give evidence under oath. The inquiry was therefore less rigorous
and formal than a standard coroner's inquest.
Then there are the actions of the Oxfordshire coroner himself, Nicholas Gardiner.
His inquest was adjourned on the instruction of Lord Falconer. But I have unearthed
the fact that a full death certificate was issued by the local registrar (following
the instructions of the coroner) on August 18 - a week after the Hutton Inquiry
started hearing evidence - giving explicit reasons for death.
I have a copy of that certificate. It cites haemorrhage and incised wounds
to the left wrist, conclusions that are far from certain for the reasons given
When I asked Harriet Harman how it was that the coroner was able to establish
cause of death when the Hutton Inquiry had barely started, she replied that
he 'was able to ascertain reasons for ... death from the post-mortem report
from the Home Office pathologist, Dr Hunt, and the toxicology report from Dr
Allen[sicl'. The death certificate, we now learn, was issued as a result of
a meeting on August 14 between Dr Hunt, Dr Allan (or their representatives)
and the coroner. A parliamentary question I asked has now revealed that this
meeting followed an unusual, even irregular, meeting between Home Office officials
and the coroner on August 11. Doubtless the officials were able to help guide
the coroner on the way forward.
So what was the point of setting up an inquiry to look into the circumstances
of Dr Kelly's death when the facts had, it appears, already been decided? And
where did that leave the normal inquest procedure, as even that wasn't followed?
More pertinently still, the Coroners Rules required that 'where an inquest
has been adjourned for any reason', an interim certificate of death shall be
issued if needed. In effect, this is a certificate only to confirm death and
allow the body to be buried. Clearly, the rule was not followed in this case.
I discussed the matter with Michael Powers QC, a leading expert on coroners'
law, who professed himself astonished that a full death certificate could have
been issued in this way. So with the Hutton Inquiry barely started, the Oxfordshire
coroner determines the cause of death without the normal inquest procedure,
bases this on the severing of the ulnar artery, the only such cause of death
in the whole of2003, and relies exclusively, it seems, on Dr Allan, who later
would tell the inquiry that the level of coproxamol present was insufficient
to cause death, and on the findings of pathologist Nicholas Hunt.
What of Dr Hunt? Who selected him for this task? The Oxfordshire coroner, it
turns out. He chose him from a list of pathologists approved from the Home Office
as being suitably qualified to be competent to investigate suspicious or violent
deaths. I have secured a list of those so approved in 2003. It contains the
names of 43 such pathologists, many with great experience, having been added
to the list as far back as 1978. Dr Hunt was added to the list only in 2001.
Just seven ofthe43 pathologists were added after him.
Now it may be that Dr Hunt has much to recommend him, but in a case as sensitive
as this, wouldn't it have been more normal to have selected someone with more
experience, or indeed, as Michael Powers suggested to me, to have chosen two
pathologists to work together?
The police operation was also a rather curious one. The files are all off-limits,
locked up at Thames Valley Police headquarters, but an interesting nugget is
to be found deep in the inquiry website. 'Operation Mason', as it was termed,
was begun at 2.30pm on July 17, around nine hours before David Kelly was reported
missing, and at least half an hour before he left his home to go on that last
walk. No satisfactory explanation has ever been given for this astonishing foresight
on the part of police.
Then there is the response after the call to the police was made. First there
was the erection of a 45ft antenna in Dr Kelly's garden. I have spoken to one
of the most senior police officers in the UK who could offer no possible explanation
for a structure this size and doubted if many police forces actually had such
a piece of equipment.
He was also at a loss to explain why Dr Kelly's wife Janice was turfed out
of her house in the middle of the night to stand on the lawn for an extended
period while a dog was put through the house. He called it 'bizarre'.
At the Hutton Inquiry itself, conflicting evidence was piled on top of conflicting
evidence with seemingly no attempt to get to the truth. Crucially, the position
of the body seems in doubt, with those who found it - search-party volunteers
Louise Holmes and Paul Chapman
- insisting the body was sitting up or slumped against a tree, while DC Graham
Coe later states it was flat on its back away from the tree.
Moreover, three items the volunteers swear were not present - the blunt knife,
a watch and an opened bottle of Evian water - had mysteriously appeared by the
body by the time DC Coe left the scene.
Then there are the basic questions that would occur to even a rookie police
officer but which here went unasked, or at least unanswered.
Whose fingerprints were on the knife? Was there any DNA other than Dr Kelly's
to be found in the blood samples taken? Was Dr Kelly's watch, which lay beside
him, broken or intact? What time did it show? What were the last calls made
to the mobile phone he had on him? We do not know and Lord Hutton does not ask.
But then Lord Hutton, tasked to examine the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's
death, seemed peculiarly uninterested in these, giving every appearance of simply
going through the motions. In this he was not alone. For the media too, the
focus was firmly on the battle between the BBC and the Government. That focus
may have taken the light off a much more important story.
After Hutton formally reported, the coroner would have been within his rights
to reopen the inquest, but he chose not to do so, despite being made aware of
the considerable doubts about the medical evidence. Many people find it hard
to accept that Dr Kelly's death was suicide, and the passage of time has only
firmed up that doubt. lam conscious that some, particularly those who were close
to him, will want to put all this behind them, to move on.
The reality, however, is that this episode is not going to go away. Perhaps
Dr Kelly, renowned for his persistence, dedication and aptitude for systematic
and logical questioning, would have understood that some of us cannot rest until
the many important unanswered questions have finally been resolved.
posted by Rowena
Read from Looking Glass News
paramedics question suicide verdict on whistleblower Kelly
investigates Dr Kelly's death
Enron Bankers/Witnesses Being Murdered?
witness found dead in park
me the head of "Kenny Boy" Lay
for the Bush Crime Family: Ken Lay took many secrets to the grave
did they murder Philip Merrill?
Not So Strange Case of Philip Merrill
vu all over again: Merrill discovered in Chesapeake with shotgun wound to the
head, weighed down with anchor.
Bay claims another victim who had an intelligence background
death of the week
State Department "Suicide" Rate Climbing
88 Dead Scientists And Microbiologists
Mysterious Deaths of Top Microbiologists
He Taken Out?
Skolnick: Was Hunter Thompson Suicided?
Curtis Investigator's "Suicide" case reopened by Georgia Police!
shoots himself three times
Dei financier is found dismembered under bridge
the Hariri assassination in the light of recent events
Reportedly Assassinated To Make Way For Large US Air Base In Lebanon
Dangerously Incomplete Hariri Report