Dr. David Kelly

I don’t know how Dr. David Kelly died. I wasn’t there. The mild mannered weapons expert simply took his afternoon walk, as he did every day, and didn’t return. He was found the following morning, dead.

Such tragic deaths do not normally become the targets of conspiracy theorists, generally because the proper processes and methods of investigation are employed and their findings tend to be fairly unequivocal. It is why we have CORONERS, and why they have been practising in this country for at least a Millennia.

Alas, for reasons kept only to themselves, the British Government elected to dispense with a Coroner in the case of Doctor Kelly and instead appoint, erm......Lord Hutton, a proven Establishment lackey.

So whereas a Coroner will assiduously subpoena witnesses and cross examine them thoroughly, under OATH, in an effort to uncover the facts, Lord Hutton erm, did no such thing. He was NOT empowered to ask such questions or to cross examine anyone, (then again, as he wasn’t a Coroner anyway, he couldn’t possibly have grasped the significance or merits of the answers he would have received).

So whilst I would NEVER wish to personally reach any conclusions or verdicts surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly, not least because of the pain it would cause to his family, I WOULD love to know the answers to a few questions. In fact, I'd be much happier if they were even ASKED:-

1. Why was the Forensic ‘specialist’, who initially investigated Kelly’s death and on whose testimony so much rested, a NEWBIE who had never previously worked in the field?

2. Why is the PATHOLOGIST who examined Kelly after his death currently the subject of investigations into “astonishing blunders” made in other cases?

3. Why are these 2 obvious inadequates permitted precedence over the hoards of other medical experts and doctors who have voiced concerns that Kelly couldn’t have bled to death?

4. Why were the Paramedics who attended Kelly, and who had witnessed “very many” suicides involving slashed wrists, not permitted to give evidence to any inquiry? According to Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt, there was virtually no blood present on Kelly or at the scene:-“‘there just wasn't a lot of blood... When somebody cuts an artery, whether accidentally or intentionally, the blood pumps everywhere. I just think it is incredibly unlikely that he died from the wrist wound we saw,’' says Hunt.

5. Why did the knife, supposedly the weapon used to slash Kelly’s wrists, have NO FINGERPRINTS, even though Kelly wore NO gloves, a fact only discovered after a statement released under the Freedom of Information Act?

6. How could a man who had a seriously weakened elbow, cut an artery for which there is NO known record of it resulting in the bleeding to death of the victim, (the Ulner Artery),a cut NEVER having previously being recorded in any suicide attempt?

7. Why would Kelly, a scientist, doctor and man of much knowledge, use a BLUNT pruning knife?

8. How could a man, with a known predilection, (almost a PHOBIA), of swallowing pills, consume TWENTY NINE Copraxamol tablets, (even though that amount represents just a THIRD of what would have been required to kill him?)

9. Why did the first person to come across the deceased Dr. Kelly, Louise Holmes find him resting against a tree; a fact borne out by Hutton who confirmed having seen photographs of Kelly in situ; yet by the time Paramedics Bartlett and Hunt arrived, Kelly had been moved “some distance” away from the tree?. Detectives on the scene have already testified that Kelly’s body had not been moved or touched.

Michael Powers QC, is a barrister and former doctor who is one of Britain's leading experts in coroner law. He states:-
'For an inquest to conclude that suicide is the cause of death, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt,' he said. 'In this case, there are a lot of gaps. The evidence of the paramedics, who are professionals, is significant. There appears to be no accurate measure of how much blood Kelly lost and a very real question, backed up by witnesses, that it was insufficient to lead to his death.
'The toxicological evidence is very poor. There are questions over where the pills came from and how many he took.'

Of course, there may well be entirely logical and wholly innocent answers to these, as well as other questions surrounding David Kelly’s death. It is very likely that many of the answers are in the evidence, documentation and Post Mortem results that were presented to Lord Hutton. Which leads me to my final question:-

10. Why would the Post Mortem results relating to the suspicious and controversial death of a man and scientist, associated with, and knowledgeable about, some of the UK Governments secret operations, be ordered to be LOCKED AWAY FOR 70 YEARS!!???