No decision yet - but according to a 'senior source'...
Ministers try to avert Kelly inquest and end speculation by calling for post mortem details to be published on the internet
By Tim Shipman
Last updated at 6:46 PM on 23rd August 2010
Ministers want to publish details of Dr David Kelly’s post mortem examination on the internet to end speculation about the weapons inspector’s death.
Downing Street today welcomed the disclosure that Attorney General Dominic Grieve is to review calls for a full inquest following calls for a hearing to clear the air from the pathologist who examined Dr Kelly’s body.
But the Mail has learned that ministers would prefer to release documents on Dr Kelly’s demise without the need for a full inquest because they are concerned about the reaction of the scientist’s family.
Government officials say Mr Grieve is determined to find a way to ‘draw a line’ under the affair that avoids upsetting Dr Kelly’s widow Janice.
In an interview at the weekend pathologist Nicholas Hunt said he would welcome an inquest, claiming the death of Dr Kelly was a ‘textbook case’ of suicide.
Mr Grieve’s officials described that intervention as ‘important new evidence’ that could help him decide whether to call for a new hearing.
Another government source told the Mail that Dr Hunt’s intervention could give ministers ‘a dignified way out’ of the simmering controversy, which has seen doctors and lawyers question the official findings about Dr Kelly’s death by the Hutton Report.
Dr Kelly, 59, was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003 a week after he was identified as the source of a BBC story claiming the Government 'sexed up' its dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Hutton, whose inquiry took the place of an inquest, controversially placed a 70-year ban on the publication of secret files relating to Dr Kelly’s death, which has driven some to claim the suicide verdict was a cover up.
But a senior source said: ‘It is clear from what Nicholas Hunt has said that there is nothing to hide and it may be that it is better to publish the papers, including the post mortem.
‘It is clear that the Kelly family are not in favour of a full inquest but publication, which would allow those interested in the case to see that there is nothing to hide, might be in everyone’s interests.’
Officials stress that they have not reached a decision and that it would be ‘unusual’ to publish details of the post mortem, which are usually only released to the family of the dead.
The power to release the papers resides with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, though Mr Grieve has the legal right to demand access to them.
Another minister today urged the two ministers to resolve the issue. ‘I wish Ken and Dominic would just sort it out amongst themselves. If we’re trying to protect the Kelly family from further pain, letting the issue drag on all summer is not the answer.’
A decision is likely to be made after MPs return from their summer break next month.
David Cameron’s official spokesman said: ‘The position is that if the Attorney General feels there is material new evidence, he can apply to the High Court for an inquest.
‘I understand he is thinking about that. It’s very much a matter for the Attorney General. The Attorney General has a particular legal role here and it is a matter for him.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305490/Ministers-try-avert-Kelly-inquest-end-speculation-calling-post-mortem-details-published-internet.html
By Tim Shipman
Last updated at 6:46 PM on 23rd August 2010
Ministers want to publish details of Dr David Kelly’s post mortem examination on the internet to end speculation about the weapons inspector’s death.
Downing Street today welcomed the disclosure that Attorney General Dominic Grieve is to review calls for a full inquest following calls for a hearing to clear the air from the pathologist who examined Dr Kelly’s body.
But the Mail has learned that ministers would prefer to release documents on Dr Kelly’s demise without the need for a full inquest because they are concerned about the reaction of the scientist’s family.
Government officials say Mr Grieve is determined to find a way to ‘draw a line’ under the affair that avoids upsetting Dr Kelly’s widow Janice.
In an interview at the weekend pathologist Nicholas Hunt said he would welcome an inquest, claiming the death of Dr Kelly was a ‘textbook case’ of suicide.
Mr Grieve’s officials described that intervention as ‘important new evidence’ that could help him decide whether to call for a new hearing.
Another government source told the Mail that Dr Hunt’s intervention could give ministers ‘a dignified way out’ of the simmering controversy, which has seen doctors and lawyers question the official findings about Dr Kelly’s death by the Hutton Report.
Dr Kelly, 59, was found dead in woods near his Oxfordshire home in July 2003 a week after he was identified as the source of a BBC story claiming the Government 'sexed up' its dossier on Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction.
Lord Hutton, whose inquiry took the place of an inquest, controversially placed a 70-year ban on the publication of secret files relating to Dr Kelly’s death, which has driven some to claim the suicide verdict was a cover up.
But a senior source said: ‘It is clear from what Nicholas Hunt has said that there is nothing to hide and it may be that it is better to publish the papers, including the post mortem.
‘It is clear that the Kelly family are not in favour of a full inquest but publication, which would allow those interested in the case to see that there is nothing to hide, might be in everyone’s interests.’
Officials stress that they have not reached a decision and that it would be ‘unusual’ to publish details of the post mortem, which are usually only released to the family of the dead.
The power to release the papers resides with Justice Secretary Ken Clarke, though Mr Grieve has the legal right to demand access to them.
Another minister today urged the two ministers to resolve the issue. ‘I wish Ken and Dominic would just sort it out amongst themselves. If we’re trying to protect the Kelly family from further pain, letting the issue drag on all summer is not the answer.’
A decision is likely to be made after MPs return from their summer break next month.
David Cameron’s official spokesman said: ‘The position is that if the Attorney General feels there is material new evidence, he can apply to the High Court for an inquest.
‘I understand he is thinking about that. It’s very much a matter for the Attorney General. The Attorney General has a particular legal role here and it is a matter for him.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305490/Ministers-try-avert-Kelly-inquest-end-speculation-calling-post-mortem-details-published-internet.html
posted by Andrew Simon at 9:49 PM
2 Comments:
A proper legal inquest and not the farce that was the Mutton-headed inquiry is needed to establish the precise facts. Serious questions need to be answered, such as:
1. Why were there no finger prints on the knife Dr Kelly allegedly slit his wrist with?
2. Why did Dr Kelly have a head injury and bruises to his chest and legs?
3. Why has there not been a proper inquest?
1. Motive - Iraq had just been invaded illegally for financial gain and David Kelly would be the prime candidate to provide evidence that the war in Iraq was illegal at a war crimes trial. Further he had already informed the media that the government had fabricated evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq. Blair clearly had close links with the arms industry as demonstrated by the BAe and Saudi corruption affair. Also note Blair was recently consulting for a Korean Oil company, one of the largest oil contractors in Iraq, he has been paid £millions - Blair has been struggling to hide the facts of this consulting from the public for the last two years.
2. Perpetrators - The governments who had invaded Iraq (UK & US) and the commercial interests; the arms industry, the oil industry, the construction industry. It is a red herring to implicate Iraqi involvement.
3. Opportunity. David Kelly was a habitual walker alone in the countryside.
The further harm that the Kelly family have been caused is also the Blair government's fault for deciding to only hold the Hutton enquiry . This case is a perversion of justice and a proper inquest is needed. Notwithstanding it would be very regrettable that the Kelly family would have to endure an inquest and consider that Dr Kelly died at the hands of a murderer.
Dr Kelly's post-mortem has been kept secret for 70 years by Hutton on the orders of Blair, supposedly out of consideration for the Kelly family - a disgustingly hypocritical claim after such base treatment of Dr Kelly by Blair's government. The only consideration Blair and his greedy bunch understand is financial consideration for themselves. What are they hiding?
And if Cameron doesn't call for an inquest it is clear that he is weak and like Blair in the pocket of the arms and oil industries.
There is an opportunity for the despised corrupt political system to show some recovery.
I suspect the proper legal inquest would just make the defenders of the status quo work a bit harder. Nicholas Hunt clearly falls into that group, witness his convenient willingness to come into bat now. For him to say he would like to find something untoward is somewhat perplexing when his job is to report the facts. He has now adduced quite a messy scene at the place where Dr Kelly was found, extending to his clothing.
Now back to the beginning - was it not experienced paramedics, one of them coincidentally named Hunt, which first flagged up that there was something very fishy with the suicide scene, something they would have probably seen quite a lot of? And that was only the start of a catalogue of mysterious occurrences which have no place at all in a "textbook suicide".
Writers like (clever) Aaronovitch and (silly) Hoggart are not worth listening to because they do not even start to explain all the bizarre twists and turns of this so-called suicide.
Because there are victims in this case- the family of Dr Kelly - there is then a wonderful wall to erect to protect simultaneously them and those who have something to hide. And this is probably the wall which in the final analysis will prevent the truth ever coming out whether a proper inquest occurs or not.
Post a Comment
<< Home