Post by email@example.com Post by firstname.lastname@example.org Post by email@example.com
the document is here!
The document was presented at the Hutton inquiry which makes it a public
document and therefore accessible to all who want to see it.
Because of the desecration of Dr Kelly's grave, by people of similar
persuasion to yourself, Dr Kelly's body was exhumed from its final resting
place in 2017 at the *request of his family* and his remains subsequently
cremated yopreserve the family's peace and anxiety over the matter.
The stench of whitewash coming off of that document is something else.
When the legal bods started to circle, the Government backed down and released that fictitious bit of rubbish you linked to.
I don't know what colour the sky is in your world but, guess what, Governments *do* kill troublesome citizens and they *do* lie about it.
Your incomplete Telegraphs quote such that it is, simply does not say that.
What it does say is that
*Evidence relating to the death of David kelly* with no indication as to what that evidence might be. One is entitled to ask if the correspondent knows what it is then why doesn't he reveal it? Don't now start to rattle on about 'D notices. These are no more than official *requests* by government to news editors. They have no force in law.
Your quote falls far short of evidence. Indeed we don't even know the name of the correspondent himself he being described as "* it has been reported*"
If you have ant reservations regarding the government released document then I would ask you to note from the very beginning that you are reading an affidavit drawn up under the Criminal Justice Act of 1967.
Every page of that document was signed by ALLAN ALEXANDER RICHARD on the 21st July 2003.
Dr Allan Alexander Richard is an eminent Forensic Consultant.
I would suggest that such a person would not put in danger his career and reputation by uttering a false affidavit.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Dr Kelly died other than by his own hand. Had there been then no doubt Dr Richard would have included it in his report and would be part of the transcript of the evidence given.
Just one last thing. there is no defence under British law to a charge of murder on the grounds that it was ordered by any member or any agent of the British Government. There is no licence to kill.
Had it been the case that Dr Kelly's death came about as the result of foul play, then it would have caused more tha a resignation or two from the British Government. It would have initiated a full police inquiry with a view towards prosecutions and convictions.
Government personnel regardless of their standing are as accountable to the law as are the rest of us.
I'm not sure what part of that link you're having a problem with?
Or whether you're being deliberately obtuse.....
"Evidence relating to the death of David Kelly, the government weapons inspector, is to be kept secret for 70 years, it has been reported.
A highly unusual ruling by Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into Dr Kelly's death, means medical records including the post-mortem report will remain classified until after all those with a direct interest in the case are dead, the Mail on Sunday said.
And a 30-year secrecy order has been placed on written records provided to Lord Hutton's inquiry which were not produced in evidence.
The Ministry of Justice said decisions on the evidence were a matter for Lord Hutton. But Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has conducted his own investigations into Dr Kelly's death, described the order as ''astonishing''.
Dr Kelly's body was found in woods close to his Oxfordshire home in 2003, shortly after it was revealed that he was the source of a BBC report casting doubt on the Government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction capable of being fired within 45 minutes.
An inquest was suspended by then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, who ruled that Lord Hutton's inquiry could take its place. But in the event, the inquiry focused more on the question of how the BBC report came to be broadcast than on the medical explanation for Dr Kelly's death.
Lord Hutton's report in 2004 concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by cutting an artery in his wrist. But the finding has been challenged by doctors who claim that the weapons inspector's stated injuries were not serious enough.
One of the doctors seeking a full inquest, former assistant coroner Michael Powers, told the Mail on Sunday he had seen a letter from the legal team of Oxfordshire County Council explaining the unusual restrictions placed by Lord Hutton on material relating to his inquiry.
The letter states: "Lord Hutton made a request for the records provided to the inquiry, not produced in evidence, to be closed for 30 years, and that medical (including post-mortem) reports and photographs be closed for 70 years."
Dr Powers asked: "Supposedly all evidence relevant to the cause of death has been heard in public at the time of Lord Hutton's inquiry. If these secret reports support the suicide finding, what could they contain that could be so sensitive?"
And Mr Baker said: "It is astonishing that this is the first we've known about this decision by Lord Hutton and even more astonishing he should have seen fit to hide this material away."
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Any decision made by Lord Hutton at the time of his inquiry was entirely a matter for him."
Which bit of "Kelly was killed by Blair's hitmen" is causing you discomfort?