Dr David Kelly and the need for an inquest (100th blogpost)

Follow @JohnPlatinumG A group of dedicated and informed individuals simmered in London temperatures, outside the Royal Courts of Justice, London, to bring attention to the fact that it has been ten years without an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. Among television companies covering the event Press TV was there as well as TV Spain. Then along came Jushua with bottles of mineral water which he distributed among the protesters. It was most welcome and refreshing. By that time people were starting to find shade round the side of the building but those passing by stopped to find out what it is all about.

It was a well-attended event with between 50 and 75 people silently protesting in the course of the afternoon. I found it is not an easy place to get to by public transport especially when the coach from Birmingham was delayed by more that an hour due to a motorway accident, but it was a great credit to those who worked behind the scenes, Margaret, co-organising the event, getting leaflets printed and sewing up (by hand) some twenty gags, Jayne and Lyndsey for their inputs with posters and design, and lots of others who made a special effort to make it a special and memorable day. There was an impressive large black cloth poster laid out on the paving stones at the entrance to the Royal Courts of Justice, which could not be missed, but I wasn't sure who produced it.

Gags were worn to demonstrate that in this instance the truth had been gagged by Lord Hutton's Inquiry, more often referred to as a "whitewash". The time has come to make public the details of photographs which might determine if the body was moved. The time has come to investigate the original post-mortem conducted by Dr Nicholas Hunt. People are working behind the scenes, some who were on the demonstration, others who prefer alternative methods, to bring this unresolved affair before the public eye. Thank you everybody who attended and those who were supporting us from home.

Judge John Deed and other old retiring farts

Follow @JohnPlatinumG There were only 29 episodes of Judge John Deed, a BBC drama that got close to the true nature of the judiciary, with all the corruption, leverage and manipulation that goes on in chambers. The plug was pulled probably because it was more like what actually happens than fictional drama, and Martin Shaw has demeaned his talent to play a dreadful sixties' policeman in a drama series with a mediocre script that isn't worth the licence fee. In real life there is so much persuasion goes on in the High Court upwards that individual lives are regularly put at risk. And the most recent of these has been that of Julian Assange.

What governments get High Court and Supreme Court judges to do just before they retire is something pretty damned nasty. So Lord Hutton presided over an Inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly, delivered a verdict of suicide from the accounts of unsworn witnesses, and retired to do charity work, when by law there should have been an inquest. Likewise, when Liam Fox was forced to resign and there was another whitewashed inquiry into the Atlantic Bridge financed foreign affairs trips and defence meetings at which Adam Werritty, without Whitehall clearance was attending, they got Gus O'Donnell to chair the inquiry, later found by Craig Murray to have been a real whitewash. Meetings between Werritty, Fox, Miliband, Gould and others were not included and were possibly set up to ease us into what now seems like an imminent War on Iran. Gus O'Donnell had already retired by the time the truth came out. In another disturbing case Judge Geoffrey Riflin QC acquitted four policemen of assault on Babar Ahmad for whom the metropolitan police had already paid damages of £60,000 for the assault in a private case. Riflin  retired straight after the case.

And who is retiring to one of the most despicable and oppressive states on the planet, Qatar, where slavery is still rife? The judge who presided over the Assange extradition appeal, Lord Phillips. Believe me, he is unlikely to be finding in favour of the poor slaves. So he did his dirty work here before retiring to continue abroad. And that is despite today's article in the Daily Mail which shows at least one of the women who accused Assange of rape was lying. As my short satirical video also claimed.

"Get thee hence Satan!" says Desmond Tutu

Follow @JohnPlatinumG As a Christian, not a very good one, I have to question why in one of the most boring of debates the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who I quite like, recently shared a platform with Tony Blair? After nearly 30 minutes of viewing I tried to get somebody with more stamina than me to watch this tedium ad infinitum and precis it for me. She was bored out of her mind and could not rescue me by providing a more enthusiastic impression of the 'debate' than I had already formed. What I would really like to know about this event, and I think I can answer it, is would the Prince of Peace have shared a platform with the Prince of War? No. He would have said "Get thee hence Satan".

This is exactly, well not quite exactly, what Desmond Tutu said to Blair last week and what Rowan Williams ought to have told him previously. Yesterday Desmond Tutu wrote in the Observer that Blair and Bush should be tried at the Hague for war crimes. In response to Tutu's criticism Blair came out with the same old pathological lies. What 'independent analysis', I ask myself, can exonerate Blair from guilt for his crimes in Iraq? Is it the Hutton Inquiry he set up to prevent due process of coronial law taking place after Dr David Kelly was found dead in the countryside? Was it the 'dodgy dossier' that Blair fabricated to take us into an illegal war? I should like to know to what 'independent analysis' he alludes. Because if it does clear his name, and that of Jack Straw, believe me it will not be independent. It will be heavily biased.

You never know with Blair whether the lie is going to slip off the end of the right fork or the left fork of his duplicitous tongue! But you know it will slip out one way or the other.

Here is another piece of 'non-independent' news, that is real news, but you will not see it reported or broadcast anywhere in mainstream media outlets. In comments to The Guardian/Observer on the article linked above the sixth one down sorting by Oldest first was removed by moderators. Though I did not see it myself I have been reliably informed that it claimed Tony Blair should also be tried for not allowing an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. There was nothing as far as I can gather offensive about the comment. Before it was removed early yesterday it was taking a massive number of recommendations (more than 2000) in a matter of hours. Nobody at the Guardian has explained to its readers why this comment was removed. You have to ask yourself what kind of independence there is at the Guardian. About as much as one of Blair's independent analyses, I conjecture.

The Ghost of Dr David Kelly

Follow @JohnPlatinumG After years of theatricals I have gone into the film industry. This 2 minute visitation is a serious satire which questions what kind of a government intercedes to prevent, as the law requires, an inquest into an unexplained death. In this case it concerns the death of Dr David Kelly. 1 in 4 people do not believe his death was suicide. Click here to see 'The Ghost of Dr David Kelly'

Whitewashing, laundering and retirement

Follow @JohnPlatinumG

It may come as a surprise to some that there is a policy of commandeering establishment figures to oversee uncomfortable inquiries, get these figures  to deliver the outcome required by the establishment, and then pension them off. Or in at least one case, ‘retire’ them even before they can preside.

When the weapons inspector who revealed that the famous ‘dodgy dossier’ had been ‘sexed up’, to use the epithet most widely applied to it,  was found dead in the countryside, Prime minister, Tony Blair, instructed the soon to be retiring Lord Brian Hutton to hold an Inquiry into Dr David Kelly’s death. There should have been an inquest. Indeed an inquest had been started but that was abandoned, the coroner was almost instructed to quickly find a verdict of suicide, and the Hutton Inquiry ‘whitewashed’ the case. Thames Valley Police have still not released photographic evidence in their possession, despite freedom of information requests. Having done his duty to the establishment that had supported him throughout his life Lord Hutton retired.

There was some very seedy stuff going on at the highest level when Liam Fox was forced to resign. The devious dealings were conducted through a bogus charity which Fox founded, Atlantic Bridge, through which neo-con/Zionist funds were being laundered, if that is the right word. This so-called charity, of which Margaret Thatcher was honorary president, included in its rank some of the old boy network at the very heart of government. Before the Charity Commision shut it down for malpractice other cabinet and government members as well as Liam Fox served on its advisory panel. Among these were George Osborne, William Hague and Michael Gove. Lord Astor of Hever, father-in-law to the prime minister, David Cameron, was a trustee of Atlantic Bridge and was himself involved in defence discussions which included Adam Werritty, a friend of Fox, and best man at Fox’s wedding.

Werritty’s involvement, and the whole seedy defence affair, was whitewashed with a big two-handed brush by Gus O’Donnell (commonly referred to as GOD because of his initials and not due to any divine gifts). Almost immediately after he cleared the guilty of any serious misdemeanour  Gus O’Donnell retired. However a rather more devious retirement took place connected as a result of the whitewash which was only discovered by response to a letter from Paul O’Flynn, a doughty M.P. representing Newport West. As well as questioning Gus O’Donnell’s ‘inquiry’ O’Flynn hinted ‘that the Prime Minister may have broken the ministerial code’ in not engaging Sir Philip Mawer to conduct the Inquiry presided over by Gus O’Donnell.

Sir Philip Mawer himself believed he should have led this Inquiry as he was the ‘sole enforcer of the code’. So why did GOD preside over it? The prime minister alone dictates who presides over an inquiry and O’Flynn suggests:

‘There is powerful evidence that using Sir Gus O'Donnell to carry out the swift investigation was a decision taken to hide the whole truth in order to satisfy political expediency and avoid political embarrassment to the Coalition.’ 

The whitewash was particularly sketchy about the number of meetings at which Werritty was present and sketchy too about the presence of other figures at many more meetings, including the Israeli ambassador Matthew Gould, substantially more than the O’Donnell Inquiry said had taken place − more than twice as many in fact. But the retirement of Sir Philip Mawer was done so surreptitiously that most people were unaware it had taken place, and it was only when a letter from Paul O’Flynn to Sir Philip was responded to by Sir Alex Allen that it was apparent that Sir Philip had been replaced. 

Another inquiry is being called because of the O’Donnell botch-up. A House of Commons public administration committee presided over by Mr Bernard Jenkin is asking for issues to be readdressed. Reading between the lines it looks like Sir Philip Mawer was ‘pushed’ and the cynical among us might consider the reason for this is to replace him with someone as compliant to the establishment as Gus himself.

This ‘deliver and retire’ policy applies not just to inquiries. High Court cases which are seen to be of detriment to the establishment are dealt with similarly. One such case is that of Babar Ahmed. He has been held in prison without trial for 8 years and now faces extradition to the United States thanks to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. Ahmed was beaten by police and in a civil case awarded £60,000 damages for his injuries. A criminal case was brought before the courts and those policemen who beat Ahmed up walked free. The jury had not been informed of the damages award and the Judge, Geoffrey Rivlin QC, retired the month after this verdict was announced. Draw your own conclusions,

Why Dominic Grieve should resign (II)

Follow @JohnPlatinumG

In December last year I raised an Epetition calling for the resignation of Dominic Grieve because he took it upon himself to investigate the death of Dr David Kelly, the arms inspector who brought attention to the 'dodgy dossier' which took us into an illegal war with Iraq. There was never a proper inquest into Dr Kelly’s death. In fact Dominic Grieve, at the behest of Michael Howard, had himself backed an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death in 2010 providing sufficient evidence warranted such an inquest. But instead he looked into the death himself and concluded that on the ‘evidence’ he had seen there was nothing which led him to believe anything but the Hutton Inquiry’s conclusion that Dr Kelly took his own life.

To begin with the Hutton Inquiry, or any other inquiry, has no legal authority to establish the death of any person dying from unnatural causes. That is the role of a coroner. The Hutton Inquiry was further hampered by the fact that witnesses were not sworn in, and were only marginally cross-examined – if at all. Likewise the Attorney General’s legal background relates to occupational and safety law, and in fact he is rather a career politician than a lawyer. Coroners have profession-specific training and qualifications which it is unlikely either Dominic Grieve or Lord Hutton possess, leaving neither of them in a position to replace a coroner, but which both of them appear to have done. 

·         Coroners have to be available 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

·         Coroners need to have medical-training and very often possess forensic knowledge.

·         Coroners need to keep up to date with changes in Coronial Law – a discipline on its own.

The Attorney General is advisor to the government and the highest legal authority in England and Wales. The last three Attorney Generals, Peter Goldsmith, Patricia Scotland and the current one, Dominic Grieve, have each exceeded their authority. In an email to the Attorney General’s office on 18 May 2011, Christopher Stephen Frost, a specialist in diagnostic radiology, sought reassurance that due process would take place in establishing an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. As I've mentioned before, in his email he pointed out that due process had not ensued with both Grieve’s predecessors, “Lord Goldsmith over his twice changed Iraq War legal advice and Baroness Scotland over the twice cancelled Serious Fraud Office investigation of British Aerospace”.

On 19 December 2011 Justice Nicol attempted to bring to an end any chance of an inquest into the death of Dr Kelly, which is alarming since there never was a proper inquest. Instead the findings of the Hutton Inquiry, which dealt with this unnatural event clumsily, was allowed to stand. To add to the lack of justice from what was more correctly labelled “a whitewash” Hutton prohibited papers and photographs related to Kelly’s death from public scrutiny for 70 years, a decision subsequently upheld by Dominic Grieve, and Justice Nicol. Some details of the police investigation and post mortem reports have been released but the all-important photographs, which, in conjunction with an inquest would help establish the truth, are still being withheld.

By not releasing photographs of Dr Kelly’s body and the position where it lay does nothing to allay suspicions that the body was moved at some time between being found and the arrival of the paramedics. There are conflicting reports as to where the body lay when it was discovered and a short time afterwards. Paramedics, David Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt, on their arrival at the police-scene, applied electrodes to the body while the police took photographs. The body at this time was lying flat on the ground far enough away from the tree for a person to walk between the tree and body. The paramedics pronounced Dr Kelly dead at 10.07 a.m. Earlier Ms Holmes and Paul Chapman, who were searching the area found Dr Kelly slumped back against the tree, where the police-dog-team also mentioned they had seen the body. These discrepancies were ignored by the Hutton Inquiry. No coroner in the land would have ignored such a conflict of evidence without cross-examining the witnesses.

A group of dedicated medical experts, who have long questioned Hutton’s finding of suicide in Dr Kelly’s death continue to call for an inquest. Their latest request, made a few days ago, raises the issue about the moving of the body. A proper inquest, when it is granted, will almost certainly establish that the body was moved. Who moved it? When? Why? Those are likely to be the more important additional questions.

---

Our New Police State

Follow @JohnPlatinumG

The biggest problem of the government’s new proposed measures to give security services the ability to intercept all our emails, phone calls, blogs and other forms of communication is how these security services exonerate themselves for their own illegal practices because of such measures. There was never an inquest into the death of weapons’ inspector, Dr David Kelly, a legal requirement. We don’t know why. Some of us are still fighting for justice into this unexplainable death. It appears that Thames Valley Police have already been illegally involved in tapping into a website concerned with getting an inquest into Dr Kelly’s death, without these new proposed measures.

More recently it has emerged that to evaluate what happened in the death of Mark Duggan, shot in the back of a taxi by an armed policeman, there may now be no inquest even though at the time of his death that was still a requirement by law. The argument of the security services is that it might throw light onto what surveillance measures were being used by the police at the time that they shot him. To extend the powers of the police and security services is a charter for special services’ cover-ups.

The death of Mark Duggan triggered the riots in Tottenham, not so much because a youth was shot by the police, but because the police lied by claiming he had pulled a gun on them first. Nobody in Tottenham believed the police version, according to the many online posts. Furthermore the riots, as we all know, spread in a copycat manner to many other parts of the country and all because of police ineptitude.

It was the same with the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, another unnecessary shooting of an unarmed man, and not even a suspect or a criminal. Imagine what kinds of cover-ups can be concocted if sworn evidence is no longer presented in court or is not available in the public domain because it might ‘jeopardise national security’. All the decisions are going to come from the Grand Lodge. It’s a frightening prospect. Those of us who remember the Soviet Union and its scrutiny and exploitation of individuals might well see some similarities in the new proposed measures. Protest for your rights.

Why Dominic Grieve should resign over the death of David Kelly

Follow @JohnPlatinumG Even if you do not get time to read the following post please sign the epetition (UK residents only) and distribute it widely. Liberty is at stake.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/26133

Over the last decade there has been an erosion of civil liberties and a breach of civil and human rights in the UK. These range from the abandonment of habeas corpus to the creation of foreign prisons where interrogation and torture can be committed without due scrutiny or legal representation. Habeas corpus is a long-established legal tenet to ensure that anyone imprisoned, should be brought before the court. Prior to Tony Blair’s second term as prime minister habeas corpus had only notably been suspended during the Treason Trials of 1790s, at a time when Britain was at war with France, and when it was feared that revolution might spread across the channel. Now President Obama has just signed off a bill to imprison “American citizens without charge or trial”.

A lack of human rights, and the overriding of legal procedures, is even worse today. The Attorney General is advisor to the government and the highest legal authority in England and Wales. The last three Attorney Generals, Peter Goldsmith, Patricia Scotland and the current one, Dominic Grieve, have each exceeded their authority. In an email to the Attorney General’s office on 18 May 2011, Christopher Stephen Frost, a specialist in diagnostic radiology, sought reassurance that due process would take place in establishing an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly. In his email he pointed out that due process had not ensued with both Grieve’s predecessors, “Lord Goldsmith over his twice changed Iraq War legal advice and Baroness Scotland over the twice cancelled Serious Fraud Office investigation of British Aerospace”.

On 19 December 2011 Justice Nicol effectively brought to an end any chance of an inquest into the death of Dr Kelly, which is alarming since there never was a proper inquest. Instead the Hutton Inquiry dealt with this unnatural event clumsily and without properly cross-examining unsworn witnesses, as former MP Norman Baker, ably argues in his searching account The Strange Death of David Kelly. To add to the lack of justice from what was more correctly labelled “a whitewash” Hutton prohibited papers and photographs related to Kelly’s death from public scrutiny for 70 years, upheld by Dominic Grieve. If this stands when the documents are released it will be tantamount to the Clintons apologising for the United States’ experiments into the effects of syphilis on blacks and Guatemalans. A glib apology is hardly going to help anyone some sixty years from now when most people will have forgotten that Dr Kelly died because he told the truth that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and that there was no forty-five minute capability for Iraq to deploy long-range missiles which threatened the United Kingdom. These were prime ministerial lies.

Suspending habeas corpus has led to the imprisonment of a British subject, Babar Ahmad, for more than seven years without charge. Another former prisoner, Algerian-born Hider Hanani, was held for more than seven years without charge and on his eventual release from Long Lartin prison was effectively put under house arrest. Long Lartin, Belmarsh and Woodhill are our Guantanamos, except they are on UK soil, whereas Guantanamo Bay is not in the US, so in that respect, before Obama’s latest deplorable contravention of the Bill of Rights, we were more culpable in our disregard for habeas corpus and the rule of law. Tony Blair labelled Guantanamo Bay an ‘anomaly’ and the Attorney General, William Goldsmith, called for its closure in 2006, without either addressing our own anomalies. Our reputation worldwide is probably as low as it has ever been in the last hundred years. I would like to see that reputation restored. That is another reason why I am calling for Dominic Grieve to resign.