Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation

The David Kelly Affair

by Steve Moore

www.globalresearch.ca    27 September 2003

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOO309A.html

Dr. David Kelly was found dead on July 18, 2003 just three days after testifying before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament. Before Parliament, Kelly denied almost all his previous WMD comments to the BBC. Why did Dr. Kelly criticize and then, under pressure, totally accept Blair’s September 2003 pro-war 45 minutes spin on Iraqi’s so called weapons of mass destruction? More importantly, why and how did Dr. David Kelly die? The simple answer to the latter question is Dr. David Kelly was intimated, harassed and condemned to death by the increasingly secret Government at 10 Downing St. Why? For simply telling the BBC his expert opinion of the truth about Iraqi’s weapons of mass destruction.

The truth in September, 2002, was simply that Iraq had no nuclear capacity, no mobile germ or chemical warfare labs, and no capacity to launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes. (Of course, a year later, in September, 2003, the whole world knows there were no WMD left in Iraq in September, 2002).

But Kelly expressed his earlier more limited assessments to three BBC reporters and raised specific criticisms of the "spin" doctors (especially Alastair Campbell) at the Prime Minister’s office who were insisting Iraq was a "clear and present" danger. Kelly expressed the view that there was only a 30% chance that Iraq had any weapons of mass destruction and certainly none that posed an immediate threat to England or Iraq’s neighbours. And certainly none that could be launched in 45 minutes.


On May 29, 2003, Andrew Gilligan made the following report on BBC’s Radio 4’s Today program:

"What we’ve been told by one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up that Dossier (Blair’s September 2002 speech justifying war on Iraq) was that, actually, the government probably knew that 45 minute figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in. What this person says is that a week before the publication date of the dossier it was actually rather a bland production. It didn’t—the draft prepared for Mr. Blair by the intelligence agencies—didn’t actually say much more than was public knowledge already. Downing Street, our source says, ordered before publication for it to be sexed up, to be made more exciting, and ordered more facts to be discovered…..and essentially, the 45 minute point was probably the most important thing that was added….The intelligence services (were) unhappy because…..they don’t really believe it was necessarily true, because they thought the person ( a single source) making the claim had actually made a mistake."(1)

Then, on June 2 and June 4, 2003 Newsnight BBC, Susan Watts quoted from the same source ( Dr. Kelly)

as follows: "The 45 minute point was a statement that was made and it got out of all proportion. They were desperate for information, they were pushing hard for information which could be released. That was one that popped up and it was seized on and it’s unfortunate that it was. That’s why there is the argument between the intelligence services and the Cabinet Office/Number 10---because they picked up on it and once they’ve picked up on it, you can’t pull it back from them."(2)


Hence, the Blair September, 2002 justification for war was contradicted by many in his own intelligence services, including David Kelly. Even Blair’s Chief of Staff Johathan Powell wrote to Blair on September 17, 2002, just a week before Blair’s Speech, saying "We need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim we have evidence that (Saddam) is an imminent threat." Yet, on September 24, 2002, Blair told the British Public "(Saddam) has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes."(3) To top it off, the Guardian newspaper also learned that Blair’s "45 minute claim" was based on hearsay information. The revelation that the claim is second hand appears in an internal foreign office document released by the (Hutton) inquiry." (4)


Doubts about the threat posed by Iraq reached the highest levels. Even Colin Powell told Jack Straw, the British Foreign Minister, he was "apprehensive" about the circumstantial evidence rather than any "actual raw intelligence" on Iraqi’s WMD’s. According to the Guardian, "The British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and his U.S. counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq’s banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get United Nations support for a war on Iraq." (5)

In fact, the general scientific community of active weapons’ inspectors shared the same view. A conference held in Washington at the Carnegie Endowment included representatives from most key U.S. Government And security agencies as well as representatives from other governments, including Australia and England. Presentations were heard from active and former weapons inspectors in Iraq and senior staffers from the UN Special Commission on Iraq, the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency. According to Professor Sunil Ram, who attended, "The delegates concluded that Iraq had no nuclear weapons capability, and if there were chemical and biological weapons,

They were at best few in number and faced no serious military threat." (6). Dr. David Kelly attended the Conference as well.


So we have a situation where some scientists are committed to the facts and the political masters of deceit have serious doubts about whether or not their own deceptions will carry the day. Enter David Kelly. How are his views different than Blair’s Chief of Staff (Jonathan Powell) or Colin Powell’s or the weapons inspectors at the Washington Conference? There is not much difference at all. The only difference is the Straw/Powell and the Blair/Jonathan Powell conversations were strictly private. All doubts, all lies were kept within the ruling circles. David Kelly acted differently, he told the BBC and the public what were the actual facts and the most likely lies (45 minutes, etc.) One would think that would be normal in a democracy to promote an educated and informed population, particularly when making life & death decisions like going to war. But, such is not the case, as David Kelly soon learned.


The life & death struggle between the British Cabinet and the BBC illustrates the lengths to which modern "democratic" governments will go to crush freedom of the press. After all, the battle to win over public opinion to support an unpopular war is no small matter. The 20th century produced democracy, international corporate power and a concentrated corporate media. The economic and political elites need absolute control of the media to promote their pro-war, redistribution of wealth, globalization agenda with is becoming increasingly unpopular among the general population. Thus, a democratically elected Government, bend on deceiving the masses, needs absolute public solidarity amongst its paid advisors and experts. Truthful "leaks" of any kind from in-house sources threaten the integrity of Government and weaken elite control. That’s why Prime Minister Blair, according to the Globe and Mail "raised the stakes"

on Sunday, July 6, 2003, by saying the above quoted BBC reports are "as serious an attack on my integrity as there could possibly be." (7) That’s why the last remnants of the free press are under attack in the Western World. The gradual movement towards a corporate fascist state requires that any dissent in the ranks of Government or the national media be crushed. Hence, the battle between the Government and the BBC. The death of Dr. David Kelly takes place in this context.


Dr. David Kelly completely reverses his previous statements to the BBC when he testifies before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament on Tuesday, July 15, 2003. This reversal is the result of tremendous pressure placed on Mr. Kelly by the British Government, which I will detail later. For now, I will merely comment that Kelly’s testimony is similar to what E.H. Carr calls the "unconvincing public confessions" of Nikolai Bukharin during the 1930’s era of the Moscow Trials. Under pressure from the State both Kelly and Bukharin pull off a complete and total reversal of their previous positions in a manner that intentionally or unintentionally exposes their tormentors to ridicule. To see what is really happening beneath Bukharin’s bowing to Stalin and David Kelly’s bowing to the "absolute" truth of Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell’s September Dossier, one has to read carefully in between the lines of their testimony.

Hence the reason why I present the following specific questions addressed to David Kelly and his answers. The reader is encouraged to read between the lines.


Kelly cannot remember naming Alastair Campbell (or the Number 10 press office) as the source of the 45 minute spin (even though he names Campbell and the Number 10 press office to BBC’s Andrew Gilligan and to Susan Watts on audio tape played before the Hutton Inquiry). Specifically Kelly is asked "Do you believe that the document (Blair’s September, 2003 speech) was transformed…..by Alastair Campbell?" Kelly answers "I do not believe that at all." Kelly is asked in Question 101 by Andrew MacKinlay: "So you made no comments about the veracity (definition of veracity is: honesty, accuracy, truth) of that document (Blair’s September speech) at all to Gilligan, you did not say it was exaggerated, embellished, probably over-egged?" Dr. Kelly answers in a very low voice, hard to hear): "No I had no doubt that the veracity of it was absolute." (Note the perhaps tongue in cheek use of the word "absolute." Certainly "absolute" truth is not the common language used by scientists). Question 144 by Chairman Donald Anderson, the Chair Person: "What lessons have you learned from this episode?" Kelly responses, "Never to talk to a journalist again, I think." (Note proper response in terms of insuring future corporate fascist control of "spin" at all times) Question 131, Richard Ottaway asks if he said the words (re 45 minutes)

To Susan Watts (BBC) quoted earlier in this article. The question is "(Do) you deny that those are your words?" Kelly answers "Yes." (Remember these words and others are on an audiotape taken by Susan Watts and given to the Hutton Inquiry) Question 141, Richard Ottaway again, "My final question is what sort of threat do you feel Iraq posed to the rest of the world in September, 2002?" Kelly answers, "I think I would quote the dossier, that it was a ‘serious and current threat.’" (Note Kelly’s reference to the dossier as if quoting chapter and verse from scripture)

Question 159, Sir John Stanley going for real blood asks, "Why did you go along with (coming to this very Parliamentary Committee). You were being exploited, were you not?" Dr. Kelly: "I would not say I was being exploited." Sir John Stanley does not let up in Question 160. He asks: "Why did you feel it was incumbent upon you to go along with the request that clearly had been made to you to be thrown to the wolves not only to the media, but also, to this committee?" Kelly responses, "I think that is a line of questioning you will have to ask the Ministry of Defense. I am sorry." (Note Kelly suggests the reasons why he has agreed to appear are not his own but those of the Ministry of Defense. Clearly indicating a strong degree of external control by the Ministry of Defense. "I am sorry," a simple comment perhaps saying I wish I could answer that question but I do not control my own destiny right now. Please ask those who do.) Question 161, Chairman Donald Anderson, wanting to make clear the witness has not been mistreated in any way asks, "Do you feel any concern at the way the Ministry of Defense responded after your volunteered your admission?" Dr. Kelly: "I accept what happened." Question 167, without mercy, Andrew Mackinlay asks: "Have you ever felt like a fall-guy? You have been set up, have you not?" Dr. Kelly: "That is not a question I can answer." Question 168 with absolutely no mercy, Andrew Mackinlay asks: "But you feel that?" Dr. Kelly, "No, not at all, I accept the process that is going on." Question 169, Chairman: "I sorry, you accept….?" Dr. Kelly: "I accept the process that is happening."

Question 174, Mr. Oliver: "Did you suggest to anyone at all that the intelligence and security services were unhappy about the September dossier?" Dr. Kelly: "Unhappy? I do not think they were unhappy. I think they had confidence in the information that was provided in that dossier." (8)

Yes, everyone is happy & confident that Saddam has lots of weapons of mass destruction that are ready to launch in 45 minutes. Yes, everyone is happy & convinced & confident of the wisdom of Tony Blair’s and Alastair Campbell’s September 2002 speech and the subsequent war. The Ministry of Defense, Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell and now Dr. David Kelly all agree. And yet, the problem remains simply because the truth remains, regardless of who lines up with who. NBC News reports on September 17, 2003, just two months after Kelly’s death that "After more than five months of searching (six months at the time of this writing) no weapons of mass destruction have been found by the Iraq Survey Group (U.S.), which consists of about 1,500 experts." (9) The same NBC News report claims "Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix now believes Iraq destroyed it’s weapons of mass destruction and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessments that led to war." (10)

So much for the "absolute" veracity (honesty, accuracy, truth) of Blair’s September Speech. And on Friday, August 30, 2003, Alastair Campbell, the man who was "heavily involved in producing the September dossier" and the man who "suggested leaking Dr. Kelly’s name to a journalist," resigned his job as Tony Blair’s Director of Communications. (11) Oh, how the times they are a changing….but at such a price. Would Alastair Campbell have resigned if David Kelly had not died and the British anti-war public had not demanded answers and the BBC was like the CNN? Not very likely. And what about Tony Blair?


Why did Kelly quote chapter and verse from Blair’s and Alastair’s flawed September 2002 speech? I’m convinced Kelly was a tragic hero who operated with the best of intentions. Not every one is a Socrates and can stand up to the entire State repressive apparatus and die peacefully knowing he has not given up even an inch of his own perception of the truth. Kelly was clearly under a lot of pressure, even more than Socrates, who was never placed in complete isolation, debriefed and hounded like Kelly. David Kelly told his friend Olivia Bosch he feared his pension and security clearance would be effected. (12) The Government claims otherwise. The Government claims Kelly pension was never threatened and he "was encouraged to go to Iraq." (13)

Kelly was only a year away from his pension and has a wife, Janice, and three daughters. Without a doubt, Kelly wanted to provide some security for his family. Kelly also wanted to avoid any police charges and court trials for any security breach. In his testimony before Parliament, Kelly stated, "I think it has been agreed by the Ministry of Defense there was no security breach involved in the interactions I had." (14)

Perhaps, the question of reputation, job security, pension, freedom from arrest and future publicity (i.e., reporters surrounding his home) are factors in which he kept the interests of his family and friends uppermost in his mind. After all, a Ministry of Defense employee reported that "the poor chap (Kelly)

hasn’t had a pay raise for three years." The Ministry of Defense also "downgraded his status." (15)

It also appears as if the Ministry of Defense "de-briefings" were brutal. Kelly was "debriefed" in a "safe house", a bungalow near Southend, Essex for several days in complete isolation from his family and the world. According to Guardian reporters, "The Kelly family has complained about the biologist’s treatment at the hand of the Ministry of Defense." (16) The widow of Dr. Kelly even called Defense Secretary Greoff Hoon to her home to lay out her complain.

Alastair Campbell, Blair’s Communication Chief told the Hutton inquiry that Hoon’s first response to Kelly’s actions was it was " a serious disciplinary matter and had clearly caused the Government difficulty and embarrassment." (17) So clearly, "serious disciplinary matters" were in the works and Kelly’s fears were no doubt increased by the day and night "de-briefings." The de-briefings apparently went so well for the Government that on July 7, 2003, Prime Minister Blair was able to tell "the BBC Chairman that the scientist (Kelly) was likely to deny Gilligan’s story." (18). Therefore, Blair demanded a complete apology from Gavyn Davies, the BBC Chairperson. Davies refused. The freedom of the press remained intact.


Professor Alastair Hay, a friend and colleague, wrote that, "I dread to think of the pressures he must have been under within the Ministry of Defense. To see him on television, before the Parliamentary Committee, almost inaudible, was to see him involved in quite a different process, over which he did not have control." (19) Nick Rufford of the Sunday Times of London told the Hutton inquiry that Kelly told him he had been "put through the wringer" by his bosses at the Ministry of defense. (20) On the same day, David Broucher, Britian’s Ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, told the inquiry that in late February, 2003, he asked Kelly "What do you think will happen if Iraq is invaded." Kelly answered, "I will probably be found dead in the woods." (21) Kelly clearly implied his death would by some one else’s hands, not his own.

Kelly is an intelligent man expecting the worst. And according to Janice Kelly, his wife, the worst did come. Janice says that, after the defense Ministry de-briefings and the heartless questions from the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, "I had never in all the Russian visits, and all the difficulties he had to go through in Iraq, where he had lots of discomforts, lots of horrors, guns pointing at him, munitions left lying around, I had never known him to be as unhappy as he was then." Janice continues, "I just though he had a broken heart. He had shrunk into himself, but I had no idea of what he might do later." In the very same Vancouver Sun article, Kelly’s 30 year-old-daughter also testified that her father was "very, very deeply traumatized." But interestingly, he was not in a typical passive depressed state. He was, as Janice testified, also "angry" about his House of Commons Committee testimony being televised. According to Janice, "He was ballistic, he just did not like that idea at all." (22) Kelly also felt "betrayed" by his bosses for revealing his name to the media.

The Kelly family statement after Kelly’s body was found reflects the above mentioned frustrations. The Kelly family says, "Events over recent weeks made David’s life intolerable and all those involved should reflect long and hard on this fact." (23) More pointedly, the conservative Economist magazine asks "Whether…officials bullied him to the point of suicide." (24) Or as Labour MP Glenda Jackson suggested, "We have seen a highly respected, innocent, devoted public servant being sacrificed as the result of a quite deliberate political strategy to afford a smoke screen" for Blair’s pro-war policy. (25) In Japan, a British journalist, during a news conference, asked Blair "Have you got blood on your hands, Prime Minster? Are you going to resign over this?" The Prime Minister appeared stunned by the question and glared in response and said nothing and walked out of the press conference. (26)


Certainly the safe house intensive Defense Department de-briefings and the televised parliamentary hearings had an effect on Kelly’s state of mind. Professor Keith Hawton, who teaches psychiatry at Oxford University, testified after the Kelly family. He said Kelly felt "publicly disgraced…his life’s work had been, not wasted, but totally undermined." When asked directly what factors led to Kelly’s death, Professor Hawton replied, "The major factor was the severe loss of self-esteem resulting from his feeling that people had lost trust in him, and his dismay at being exposed to the media." (27)

Governments and their security agencies have the technology to induce suicide or severe behavior modifications in selected victims. The over all plan, as Professor Hawton suggests, is to induce a loss of self-esteem by breaking all dependable relations of trust at the work place, in public life and at home. In short, create conditions of isolation, even outside the isolation techniques of safe house de-briefings. Public exposure of the victims hidden secrets to the media is usually part of the plan. The attempts often end in failure as in the case of the right-wing/law enforcement attempt to get Bill Clinton to resign or the FBI threat of exposing Martin Luther King’s extra-martial sex life to the media. In the latter case, the official House Committee on Assassination ruled a FBI letter to Martin Luther King "clearly implied that suicide would be a suitable course of action for Dr. King." The FBI letter to King read, "King, there is only one thing left for you to do. You know what it is…There is only one way out for you. You had better take it before you filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation." (28) Generally speaking, men of strong character tend to reject such direct or indirect suicide suggestions from their political masters. Clearly, we don’t know what happened in the de-briefings or whether the televised hearings and the attacks on Kelly’s self esteem were intended to destroy only his reputation and character or his physical body as well. We do know that John Reid, the cabinet’s "leading bruiser" referred to the Kelly leaks as the work of "rogue elements" in the intelligence services. (29) Remember now, that the enemy is "rogue" states like Iraq, North Korea, Iran etc. So calling the source of a leak a "rouge element" is like U.S. Senator MacCarthy calling someone a "communist" in the State Department when the enemy is the Soviet Union. To denounce someone as a possible enemy of the state often results in the victim being isolated at the government work place and often in the public realm. This is clearly not the case in England today where the anti-war public opinion supported Kelly and the BBC. Public opinion polls suggested only 6% of the people believed the Government over the BBC. Was Kelly also threatened with the release of public information that would have caused isolation in the private realm of family and friends?

Certainly threats to release public information about the private lives of so called "subversives" is the usual method employed when trying to break a man. Coretta King explains to her son, Dexter King, how things work. Coretta says, "Dexter, your Dad and I lived through this once already. You have to understand that when you take a stand against the establishment, first, you will be attacked. There is an attempt to discredit. Second, an attempt to try and character-assassinate. And third, ultimately physical termination or assassination." (30) As the case of King shows, the character assassination (stage two) could be intended as a suicide project or not. If Kelly did take his own life, then surely Blair, his cabinet and the spin doctors are clearly responsible for provoking his death by their attacks, their attempts to question his character, and their isolation de-briefing techniques.


To this researcher, however, suicide seems unlikely. It seems more likely that Dr. David Kelly was murdered, possibly by agents of the British or American Government. There are several reasons for thinking this. The first and obvious reason is Kelly predicted it would happen in precisely the way it did.

The famous Kelly statement quoted above: "I will probably be found dead in the woods" after Iraq is invaded. Clearly, a prediction of his murder, not his suicide. Kelly also refers to "dark actors" playing games in an e-mail shortly before he died. (31) Also Kelly, as his wife clearly says, was still capable of anger and rage at being "betrayed" by the Ministry of Defense. Clearly Kelly was not the completely depressed, passive, broken man some have painted him as. Scott Ritter, who worked with Kelly as part of the UN weapons inspections team in Iraq, has commented on Kelly’s strong character as many others have. Ritter says, "While a gentle man, he had a core of steel in him. I’ve seen him interact with Iraq governmental officials, there is no give in this man. " (32)

So how to account for the "give" of a seemingly broken man appearing before the television cameras at the parliamentary hearings humbly supporting the Blair/Campbell September, 2002 media spin? First, as I mentioned, it’s important to read between the lines. This was just a public show put on by Kelly to release him from the unknown threats made by the Ministry of Defense. Privately in session with MP’s, shortly after the televised hearings, Kelly admitted he could have used the "sexier" to Andrew Gilligan of the BBC when describing the changes the 10 Downing spin doctors required in the Blair September 2002 speech. According to the British The Weekly Telegram, Kelly also told the MP’s during the same " private hearing that he felt it was ‘unwise’ to include in the Government’s September dossier the claim that Ira’s weapons could be ready in 45 minutes." (33) Still the critical thinker; still calling a spade, a spade it seems.

And Kelly had precise future plans, which he was very excited about. Tom Mangold, a television journalist and close friend of Dr. Kelly, said that he "was passionately interested in what happens in Iraq." (34) And as Richard Hatfield, the Ministry of Defense’s Personnel Director, has pointed out Kelly was being "encouraged to go to Iraq." (35) According to Kelly’s friend Professor Alastair Hay, who e-mailed Kelly a week before his death Kelly said, "He wanted to get back to Baghdad, and some real work." (36) So we have a man with a loving wife, three daughters, good friends, a passion to work in Iraq with the US Survey Team and an employer who’s willing to send him to Iraq. Interestingly enough, several months after Kelly’s death, the same US Survey Team will report that they have found no weapons of mass destruction.

So, if Kelly were still alive, his words of caution about "spin" would have been commonly realized wisdom. Perhaps, then he would have remained quiet or maybe even counter-attacked to counteract his bad reputation as a "rogue" element.

We cannot ignore the fact that nine other microbiologists, like Kelly, have died within a five month period in late 2001 and early 2002. Several were well known to Kelly and most died under suspicious circumstances. So Kelly’s "dead in the woods" comment occurs within this context as well.

It should also be remembered that Kelly is just one year away from retirement and a pension. Lots to look forward too: A final tour or Iraq and retirement.

Surely Kelly, with his "core of steel" standing up to Iraqi military guards with guns pointed at him had the character to weather this storm. Take UN Chief Weapons’ inspector Hans Blix for example. The Bush White House leaned on him and his inspectors to produce more damming language in their reports. Blix says, "Towards the end the (Bush) administration leaned on us." Speaking from his UN office Blix said, "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media, Not that I cared very much. It was a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning (as) an irritant." (37)

Now, clearly, Blix stood at arms’ length from the Bush administration and was not directly employed by them. So Kelly was certainly in a tighter situation being employed by the British Ministry of Defense. The difference is probably similar to the difference between a "mosquito bite" and being put "through the wringer" as Kelly described. Certainly not enough to push a man with a strong "core of steel" character into suicide.

Furthermore, Dr. David Kelly had deeply held religious beliefs. He was an active member of the Bahai faith, a universal religion broadly tolerant of different religious faiths and different paths to enlightenment.

For Kelly, truth telling had a religious as well as a scientific basis. And Kelly did discuss his reservations about the September, 2002 spin with close friends of the Bahai faith. In any case, Kelly’s deep religious faith precludes suicide.

It is also interesting to note that there was no suicide note. If Kelly felt he was wronged or betrayed by his employers, surely a parting comment would come forth setting the record straight. Perhaps, a last defense of his position on the 45 minute spin, etc. More importantly, there was no farewell note to his wife or daughters explaining his actions or just saying good-bye to the ones he loved. Very unusual for a loving father.

Even stranger still is that no major media outlet (and England has some wild political tabloids) has raised the question of Kelly being murdered. It was a suicide and that was that, even before a police report was issued.

The circumstances of Kelly’s death are also questionable. Only one slit wrist gradually over many hours drawing the body of its blood supply. No sudden suicide but a very gradual one in which one has many opportunities to reverse the process and stop the blood flow. Lots of time for thinking and re-thinking.

The pain pills beside him were unlikely to have caused unconsciousness very quickly, if at all. On the other hand, a killer or group of killers could have placed a handkerchief containing chloroform, or a more powerful knock-out drug, forcefully over his mouth until he was unconscious. Then, the killers could have taken his own knife and slit his wrist and left him to die without any signs of a struggle or bodily injury.

Of course, I have no proof, but given all we know about Kelly, his family situation, his passion to return to Iraq, his gentle but strong character, his religious beliefs, his retirement with a pension is just one year, suicide seems very unlikely. For a skillful microbiologist the means chosen for suicide were painstakingly slow, extremely low tech and completely out of character. There are very few men on this planet with the knowledge of chemical and biological ingredients necessary for an immediate and relatively painless suicide and ready access to labs. Kelly was one of them. Yet, we are to believe he chose the slowest, most low tech, painful method to die.

Murder, then, is the most likely possibility. And who wold have a motive? Perhaps those very same members of the Government that have been attacking him for months, especially those from 10 Downing Street, the Ministry of Defense and the security services (including M-16) Blair never did answer the question whether he had blood on his hands. But then nobody in the establishment media is asking anymore.


Hutton inquiry update: It seems Alastair Campbell really did add and strengthen the passage about the 45 minute deployment of WMD’s. In a letter to John Scarlett, Chairmen of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Campbell suggested the word "are" instead of the word "may" in terms of the 45 minute deployment. (38)

Hans Blix also claims that Prime Minister Blair "made a fundamental mistake" in claiming that Iraq had weapons capable of being fired in 45 minutes. He said Blair had "over-interpreted" the intelligence made available to him. (39) Exactly, Dr. Kelly’s point.

So Dr. David Kelly was right and Dr. David Kelly is dead. His last public statements to parliament were exactly what his masters at 10 Downing Street wanted to hear. Perhaps, the way events were developing, they wanted Kelly’s forced retractions to be his last word.

In a very real sense, the passion and concern of the English press for David Kelly and his family reflects an almost complete identification of the British people with Dr. Kelly. It’s as if in attacking Dr. Kelly, the British Government was attacking the entire British people for their questioning, critical and largely anti-war stand. As if by bullying Kelly to suicide or killing him, the Government was attempting to murder it’s own people. Or using Bush’s fundamentalist terminology, the British public is incensed that the "liars" and the "evil doers" murdered the "righteous" one.


The end result is that the credibility of the British and US administrations is at stake. Imagine Saddam Hussein told the truth about not having weapons of mass destruction and Bush and Blair lied. The New York Times thinks this credibility problem is a terrible thing. In an editorial, they argue, "The credibility of the United States is at issue. If the estimates about Iraq’s capabilities ultimately prove far off base, it will be harder for the administration to bring international pressure to bear against North Korea, Iran, Syria and other rogue states based on intelligence assessments that they are building unconventional weapons or aiding terrorists." (40) The anti-war movement, the resistance of the people of Iraq to US/British colonialism, honest men from the establishment like Dr. David Kelly, the remnants of the free press left in the western world have indeed weakened the ability of the US/British imperialists to launch another pre-emptive strike. Unlike the New York Times, Global Outlook finds this to be an encouraging development, as I’m sure our readers do.

A free press and an informed, active population can have a positive effect on preventing war and a globalization, which only benefits the wealthy elites. That’s why the ruling classes are trying to crush any independent media. That’s why the British Government went to war with the BBC. That’s why Tony

Blair still hasn’t answered the question: "Prime Minister, do you have blood on your hands?"


  1. Complete text of BBC interview, Globe and Mail, July 22, 2003 p. A12
  2. BBC Taped Kelly’s WMD Concerns, BBC News, July 23, 2003, p. 1
  3. Sarah Hall, "No. 10 Knew Iraq Posed No Threat" Guardian Weekly, August 21-27, 2003 p. 1
  4. Ibid., p. 1.
  5. Don Plesch and Richard Norton-Taylor "Straw and Powell Had Serious Doubts Over Weapons Claims" Guardian Weekly, June5/June11, 2003, p. 1
  6. Sunil Ram "No weapons and a Funeral", Editorial, Globe and Mail, August 6, 2003, p. A13
  7. Warren Hoge, "Blair Cleared on Iraq Dossier" Globe and Mail, July 8, 2003, A10
  8. Dr. David Kelly, "Oral Evidence Foreign Affairs Committee" The United Kingdom Parliament, July 15, 2003
  9. "Blix Says Iraq Had Destroyed WMD" NBC News, September 17, 2003, p. 1
  10. Ibid, p 2-3
  11. Carol Byrne, "Campbell Steps Down as Blair Aide" Globe and Mail August 30, 2003, p. A8
  12. "Kelly’s Pension ‘Never at Risk’" BBC News September 17, 2003, p l
  13. Ibid, p. 1
  14. Op. Cit., Dr. David Kelly, "Oral Evidence….."
  15. Richard Norton-Taylor, "Brilliant Scientist Showered With Praise" Guardian Weekly, August l4-20, 2003, p. 9
  16. Guardian Reporters, "Dr. Kelly Inquiry Gets Under Way" Guardian Weekly, July 31-August 6, 2003, p. 6
  17. Caroline Byrne, "Blair, Insider Denies Charge He ‘sexed Up’ Iraq Dossier" Globe and Mail, August 20, 2003, p. A11
  18. Guardian Reporters, "Widow Contradicts Key White Hall Claims" Guardian Weekly September 4-10, 2003, p. 9
  19. Nigel Fountain and Sarah A. Smith "David Kelly, Obituary" Guardian July 19, 2003
  20. Warren Hoge, "British Arms Expert Feared Being Found Dead, Inquiry Told" New York Times, August 22, 2003, p. A8
  21. Ibid, p. A8
  22. Ed Johnson, "Weapons Adviser Kelly Felt Betrayed by Bosses, Widow Says" Vancouver Sun, September 2, 2003, p. A4
  23. "Kelly Family’s Statement: Full Text" BBC News July 19, 2003, p. 1
  24. "Fatal Words, The Hutton Inquiry" The Economist August 23, 2003, p. 45
  25. Christine Boyd "Scientists Demise Stalks Blair" Globe and Mail July 21, 2003, p. A6
  26. Ibid., p. A6.
  27. Jim Home "How Political Spin Turns into Tragedy" Times Colonist, September 2003, p. D4
  28. William Pepper, Orders to Kill, Warner Books, New York, 1995, p. 121
  29. "Death of a Scientist" The Economist, July 26, 2003, p. 52
  30. Jim Douglas "The Martin Luther King Conspiracy Exposed in Memphis" Probe Magazine, May-June 2000, p. 19 (See the King Center web site for more information at hhtp://www.thekingcenter.com/transcripts.htm.
  31. "Death of a Scientist" the Economist, July 26, 2003, p. 53
  32. "Gentle Man with Core of Steel" BBC News July 19, 2003 p. 1
  33. Sandra Laville, "Kelly Admitted He Might Have Used Word "Sexier" The Weekly Telegraph, September 17-23, 2003, p. 13
  34. Op. Cit., "Gentle man…", p. 1
  35. Op. Cit., "Kelly’s Pension…" p. 1
  36. Op. Cit., Nigel Fountain and Sara A. Smith, p. 2
  37. Helena Smith, "Blix Lashes Out at Critics, Bastards Who Thwarted Work" Globe and Mail, June 11, 2003, p. A13
  38. Ewen MacAskill, "Blair Faces Grilling at Hutton Inquiry" Guardian Weekly, August 28-September 3, 2003, p. 9
  39. Patrick Wintour, "Blair Facing Troubles to East and West" Guardian Weekly July 17-23, 2003, p. 1
  40. Editorial, "Reviewing the Intelligence on Iraq" New York Times, May 26, 2003, p. A18

 © Copyright S. Moore 2003  For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .