The Strange Death of Dr David Kelly

[Appollynon]

This book was leant to me by a close friend, and I was rather keen to read it and find out what information could be found regarding Dr Kelly’s death. By the time I had finished the first to chapters, I realised that this was one of the most explosive books I have ever read (after SHOTW and the Wave series). I was also moved almost to tears reading about the circumstances and nature of the events surrounding this most strange death. To say that the well researched and methodically gathered information in this book is shocking and heartbreaking would not really do the book and it’s author (Norman Baker MP) justice is no trifle statement.

The Hutton Inquiry concluded that Dr Kelly had died from the following causes:

1a heamorrahage
1b Incised wounds to the left wrist
2 Coproxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis

Norman Baker has diligently and thoroughly investigated the circumstances, politics, press and the lives of the people involved with the life of Dr David Kelly and the investigation in so much detail, it has left me in no doubt whatsoever as to the principal guilty parties involved in the murder of Dr Kelly, and which parties had foreknowledge and aided and abetted his murder.

The book discusses the glaring inaccuracies in the evidence gathered from he scene at which Dr Kelly was found, such as:

Medial experts have questioned the amount of blood which dr Kelly actually lost. An adult human body contains about eight pints of blood, of which about half has to be lost to cause death. The effects of four pints of blood spurting from the body cannot be hidden. Yet the two searchers who found the body initially did not even notice that Dr Kelly had apparently incised his wrist with a knife. In addition, the two paramedics who arrived on the scene shortly afterwards, pointedly referred to the fact that there was remarkably little blood around the body when they gave subsequently evidence to the Hutton inquiry. One of the paramedics, Vanessa Hunt, was not asked about this, but volunteered her view anyway. She told Lord Hutton:

“The amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing…There was dried blood on the left wrist…but no obvious sign of a wound or anything, it was just dried blood”.

David Halpin, a specialist in trauma and orthopaedic surgery suggested that it was well-nigh impossible to die from severing the ulnar artery alone, and certainly not in a matter of minutes, as has been suggested by the Nicholas Hunt the pathologist for the Hutton inquiry. Hunt testified that in his view the injuries had been sustained minutes before Dr Kelly’s death, and that the loss of blood was so enormous and fast that Dr Kelly died within minutes of this wound.

It has also been claimed by close friends of Dr Kelly, that he had an aversion to swallowing tablets, and could not have ingested the number of coproxamol tablets it has been claimed he was supposed to have swallowed (and with little or no water to help them go down no less). As someone who has an aversion to swallowing tablets, I know how hard it would be for me to swallow 30 tablets with little or no water, if I tried I would invariably gag on them and would be lucky to swallow one or two.

It also discusses the inadequacies and inconsistencies involved with the Thames Valley Poilice investigation and their handling of the evidence, such as:

It is worth noting that at this point that there is a curious file of evidence submitted to the inquiry by Thames Valley Police, only the cover page of which is publicly available. The page bears the title: “TVP Tactical support Major Incident Policy Book” and also the phrase “not for release – police operational information”. Thames Valley Police have said that this file contains tactical information on their investigation into Dr Kelly’s death.

The cover page also reveals that the codename for the investigation was Operation Mason. Chief Inspector, now superintendent, Alan Young, the senior investigating officer for the case, told me that names for operations are allocated alphabetically and that 2Mason” was simply the next one to be used. He said that given the possible overtones associated with the word “mason”, consideration had been given to adopting a different name, but by the time the matter had been properly considered, the name was out and it was to late. There is nothing to suggest that this is anything other than the truth, and wild rumours of a freemasonry angle to the case are almost certainly without foundation.

What is more concerning, however, is that the start time of Operation Mason is given as 2:30pm on the Thursday afternoon, a half an hour before Dr Kelly left his house for his walk and more than nine hours before he was reported missing. The finish time is given as 9:30am, shortly after David Kelly’s body was officially found.

This is pretty damming evidence that suggests at the very least a foreknowledge of the event of Dr Kelly’s death was about to take place, was in the possession of at least Thames Valley Police, but also likely by those higher up in the chain of command in the Government. Also if this was a genuine investigation into Dr Kelly’s death, or the events surrounding it, surely the investigation would last a lot longer than a time shortly after his body was found, as there would be evidence to go through and statements to be gathered as part of such an operation. It would seem to me that this Operation Mason was not so much an operation

Additionally to this Chief Inspector Young, was not required to make a public statement to the inquiry by Lord Hutton, despite his key role in the police investigation. This is not only unsatisfactory and a glaringly obvious omission, but also serves to leave out any questions regarding Operation Mason and it’s highly suspicious start time, thus covering any tracks for the Thames Valley Police.

The Hutton inquiry itself is also investigated and the reasons why such a form of inquiry may have been useful to use.

The government may have promised Lord Hutton “The fullest co-operation”, but form the outset, there was one striking feature to this inquiry. It had not, as would have been expected, been established as a statutory inquiry under the Tribunal of Inquiries (Evidence) act 1921. The significance of this is that the inquiry was an informal one, not required to follow normal procedures. Witnesses could not be subpoenaed if they did not wish to attend. Nor could they be guilty of perjury if they had lied. Nor were the usual protections offered by cross-examination required to be employed. Moreover, Lord Hutton had sole control over who was or was not called as a witness, what documents were or were not produced, and, to a large extent, what questions were asked or left un-asked. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, justified this decision by arguing that “Using a statutory basis for the inquiry would have led to delays and curtailed the flexibility of form that allowed Lord Hutton to conduct the inquiry in the manner he felt appropriate”.

In other words this inquiry could be conducted in any matter that Lord Hutton saw fit, and had no real rules as such to abide by that other forms of Inquiry would have safeguarded the evidence given and the way in which the Inquiry would have to be conducted. This was a double boon for all those involved, as witnesses could give evidence, knowing that the evidence was less than truthful, without having to worry about the risk of perjury and being held accountable for their evidence. Further this allowed the main focus of the inquiry to be made a political focus regarding the BBC, and used as a tool to chastise the BBC into submission to the political will of the government. This also meant that the inquiry could go on a witch hunt to force the resignation of several key figures in the BBC and act as a reminder for those still their that they must stay in line. As we have seen this has effectively killed any sort of objective reporting of events from the BBC, and cowed those reporters in the UK media on the whole, for the message went out loud and clear form the government, “Your either with us or your against us”.

Another area of focus in the book is the dodgy dossier and the 45-minute claim it contained, who was responsible and why, and how this was all covered up and related to Dr Kelly’s death. Also Dr Kelly’s work as a most respected weapons inspector and his work with chemical, biological, and ethnic specific weapons (The South African Project Coast being one of them) and how his background as being a man in the know about such things would have put him at odds with the mass propaganda being spouted by Tony B-liar and his cronies as well as the US war hawks.

There is so much I could share about this book that would likely shock and appal most readers of the forum, but I don’t want to quote large sections of Norman Bakers work and possibly spoil reading the book for anyone whose interest has been piqued. I would suggest anyone based in the UK who doubt the lengths our own government would go to, to silence dissent and opposition should read this book and SEE for themselves, just what a perilous situation we are in while we let these pathocrats and murderers run our country.