Global Research, July 15, 2007
The Elephant in the Living Room of the United Kingdom
“Where the law ends, tyranny begins” Henry Fielding
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
Medical evidence does not support suicide by Kelly
Questions still unanswered over Dr Kelly’s death
Reopen the inquest into Kelly’s death
New doubts over Kelly
Questions over Kelly
Due process and the Kelly inquest
“Sexed up” Report on the Death of David Kelly: Lord Hutton Findings challenged by Medical Doctors
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: email@example.com
© Copyright C. Stephen Frost, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6333