Daily Archives: May 20, 2011

David Kelly, NuTory Boy, Norman Baker and me

The determination of the British political elite to prevent any meaningful investigation of Dr David Kelly’s death continues unabated. At Prime Minister’s Questions on 18 May 2011 a Conservative MP Sir Peter Tapsell asked  “Now that there is to be an investigation into the abduction or murder of Madeleine McCann, isn’t there a much stronger case for a full investigation into the suicide or murder of Dr David Kelly?” Cameron replied : “On the issue of Dr David Kelly, I thought the results of the inquest that were carried out and the report into it were fairly clear and I don’t think it is necessary to take that case forward.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8521641/David-Cameron-rules-out-further-inquiries-into-death-of-Dr-David-Kelly.html)

This was surprising as the Attorney-General is still considering whether to order an inquest (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/13/david-kelly-death-inquest), the original inquest having been suspended when superseded by the Hutton Inquiry. The Attorney-General responded with:

‘The remarks appeared to catch the office of the Attorney General off-guard, with officials suggesting that nothing had change. A spokesman for Mr Grieve’s office said he would announce “in due course” whether he will ask the High Court to order an inquest.

She said: “The Attorney General is still considering representations made and we will be making a decision in due course.

“He has not consulted any of his Cabinet colleagues on the issue and is undertaking the review in his public interest role. He is still considering the material and the representations made and will make his decision in due course.”’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8521641/David-Cameron-rules-out-further-inquiries-into-death-of-Dr-David-Kelly.html)

Cameron’s determination to elite elite mischief sleeping dogs lie is made more toxic than usual by the presence in his Government of the Lib Dem Transport Minister  Normal Baker who believes Kelly was murdered, viz: “In 2007, Baker, the Lib-Dem MP for Lewes, published a book called The Strange Death of David Kelly, in which he concluded that Dr Kelly was murdered. Baker continues to believe this and has spoken frequently of the need for a full coroner’s inquest into the death because he says the public inquiry into it, chaired by Lord Hutton, had no proper investigatory powers. Some at Westminster are saying Baker is now facing a career-defining choice: serve in a government which is apparently happy to suppress the truth as he sees it, or quit. Which will it be?” (http://londonersdiary.standard.co.uk/)

I had an exchange of letters with Baker in 2006. I reproduce these below.

————————————————————————–

To: Norman Baker MP

House of Commons

07 September 2006

Dear Mr Baker,

I have read your Mail on Sunday article and watched your TV interview on the Sunday Programme (GMTV – 3 7 2006) which also contained an interview with Tom Mangold. I agree that Kelly’s death is highly suspicious and commend you for re-opening debate on the matter.

I see that Rowena Thursby is asking for help in carrying the investigation forward. I do not have any inside information but I think I might be able to help you in terms of your general investigative thrust and strategy for drumming up sustained interest within the media. You will find comments under the following heading:

General investigative thrust

Points to consider and questions to ask

The murder hypothesis

Tom Mangold

Andrew Gilligan

The behaviour of the Kelly family, the media and politicians since

Hutton

Mai Pedersen

General investigative thrust

I suggest you concentrate primarily on two things: contradictory statements made by those whose words have been recorded publicly, e.g. family, workmates, and ascertainable facts such as whether Kelly left handed (see below).

The problem with using arguments based on such things as medical judgements is that they are just that, judgements, not fact. Moreover,in the case here, there is no conclusive physical cause of death, or at least, not one which can be proved on the available evidence. The general public (and many MPs) is also unlikely to follow technical details.

The advantages of concentrating on contradictory statements are:(1) the general public can readily understand such information, (2) it is not a matter of opinion but fact whether someone has contradicted themselves at different times or contradicted another person and (3) if the people and organisations involved can be challenged about the discrepancies they have no meaningful wriggle room, because they are faced with objective facts – any refusal to answer would be pro-murder thesis circumstantial evidence.

Points to consider and questions to ask

I suggest you raise these matters publicly (you do not appear to have done so from the publicly available material – my apologies in advance if you have):

1. Kelly was within months of drawing a civil service pension. He had a sick wife who needed treatment which was not available under the NHS and he was thinking of taking up a new job in the US after he retired from the civil service to make money to pay for treatment for her. Dr Kelly had a daughter about to be married in a few weeks.

2. Kelly would surely have known that suicide would mean that his widow would at best get a widow’s pension. He would also know that any life assurance he had would be invalidated by suicide. By committing suicide, he would have been leaving his sick wife with considerably less support than he could have provided had he remained alive and continued working for someone other than the British government.

3. Slashing the wrists is a very painful way to die. If you have ever had blood taken from the wrist for testing you will have some vague idea of the excruciating pain a deep cut would engender. Death through cutting a wrist is not an obvious way to commit suicide if the person wishes to definitely kill himself. Why not use pills or drive the family car to a quiet spot and run a tube from the exhaust to the closed car interior? All perfectly simple and requiring far less nerve than slashing a wrist deeply.

4. Check whether Kelly owned a gun. If he did, the question would have to be why not use that?

5. Check whether Kelly was right or left handed. If he was lefthanded it is improbable in the extreme that he would have used his right hand to cut his left wrist. I suspect he may have been left handed simply from the way he held himself when he was before the Commons Select Committee. That is just the sort of detail a killer might overlook, ie, he or she would assume Kelly was right handed and cut the left wrist.

6. Check whether Kelly had any medical condition, such as arthritis or rheumatism, or injury which would have prevented him either using his right hand or so impaired it he would not have been able to make the cut in his wrist.

If Kelly was left handed or incapacitated by a medical condition, that alone would scupper the suicide claim.

The murder hypothesis

You have been very circumspect to date about who might have done it or why. I realise that such matters are pure speculation but to maintain media and public interest I think it important for you to lay out publicly the possible motives for murder and the possible players in a murder. You would not be accusing anyone of anything merely putting forward the possibilities.

Why would anyone wish to kill Dr Kelly? The short easy answer is because he held information which could terminally damage politicians or members of the security services. The politicians and security services could be either British or foreign. Suppose, for example, Kelly could prove that the dossier had been deliberately enhanced far beyond any intelligence appreciation of the evidence. Perhaps Kelly had been threatening privately to go public with something fundamentally damaging or that someone simply feared he might do. It could even be that Kelly did not hold damaging information but someone feared he did.

A more Machiavellian possibility is that Kelly was killed to deliberately destabilise Blair and his Government. This could have been a foreign government, a foreign security service or the British security services. John Reid claimed not long after the Kelly death that “rogue elements” within the security services were attempting to destabilise the government with dirty tricks.

Conceivably Kelly could have been killed by a single individual in government or working in the security field, who feared he would reveal something to compromise them.

Kelly was killed by someone with a personal grudge against him which had nothing to do with his work or the information he gave the BBC.

The last would seem to me to be improbable going on absurd. The others are plausible to a greater or lesser degree.

Tom Mangold

As you know from our meetings regarding the Data Protection Tribunal and MI5, I am a retired Inland Revenue officer. Part of my Revenue career was spent on investigations. When you do that kind of work you become very sensitive to the signals, verbal and non-verbal, which people give out, especially people under stress – posture, facial expression, speech delivery, content of speech etc.

During the GMTV programme to my mind Mangold was giving out signals that he was frightened and pretty frightened at that, viz: face lacking variety of expression, tense posture, nervous hand movements, eyes constantly looking slightly away from the camera – very odd for an experienced BBC journalist.

As for his language, it is a curious mixture of the sort of over emphatic speech which one commonly encounters in a saloon bar well into the evening (“Ludicrous”, “shadow of doubt” etc) and Mills and Boon (“This was a man with a very fine mind who thought, ‘Oh God I can’t get out of this “….). His statement also had all the hallmarks of being well-rehearsed rather than spontaneous. It would be interesting to see Mangold challenged by an interviewer because someone with a prepared statement which does not fit reality will struggle for lying is more demanding than telling the truth.

Here are some Mangold statements from the GMTV interview:

“I think Mr Baker could save his time and energy and should have stayed on the front bench. An enquiry into the Kelly Affair to find out if there is the possibility of murder and if so by who is a complete and utter waste of time. “

“Nothing ever happened by accident with David, you know. What he did was always calculated…”

“I am sorry to say to my mind there is not a shadow of doubt that he committed suicide, not a scintilla of doubt…”

“Something awful happened around 11.00 o’clock…”

“This is a man who had a very fine mind… who thought ‘Oh God, I can’t get out of this’…”

“I think Janice realised something awful had happened to David mentally She went upstairs and was sick a couple of times. She laid down. I think she had already decided that she was beginning to lose David…”

“The question of the possibility murder is so ludicrous you only have to think about it for a couple of minutes…”

“This case was investigated by the local police, the county police, Scotland Yard, Special Branch, MI5, MI6 had a man present and the CIA had a man present because the Americans were very interested in this. So, we are taking about seven top flight agencies investigating this, never mind Hutton, put Lord Hutton to one side. Are we to believe that all these agencies fooled by the murderers or that they conspired together to cover up the murder? It is too silly to contemplate, too silly to contemplate.”

I particularly enjoyed the sight of a supposedly sceptical leftist journalist putting his trust in the likes of M15 and the CIA.

Mangold’s performance overall I would describe as blustering. He not only uses the inflated language quoted above, but his conjectures about David and Janice Kelly’s states of minds are thin at best and bizarre at worst – his ” I think she [Janice Kelly] had already decided that she was beginning to lose David…” is truly odd.

His claimed necessary scenario for a Kelly murder – abduction from his home – is all part and parcel of his over-eager desire to rubbish the idea of murder. Quite clearly Kelly could have been (1) either abducted by people simply waiting for him to go on what appears to have been a favourite walk or (2) the phone call he received at 11.00 am may have resulted in him going out to meet someone, perhaps someone he knew, and then being abducted. The e-mail he sent to Judy Miller, a New York Times writer who had used Kelly as a source for a book on biological terrorism, in which Kelly wrote of “many dark actors playing games” (Daily Telegraph 20 7 2003) may well have been sent after he received the 11.00 am phone call. Perhaps the phone call prompted the phrase, perhaps the call came from Mai Pedersen.

So outlandishly out of character is Mangold’s behaviour that it could be interpreted as someone trying to signal that what he was saying he did not believe by being so over the top as to be absurd.

There is something called microexpressions. These are fleeting expressions which pass over a person’s face so rapidly that they are either barely discernible at the conscious level or not discerned at all. I suggest that you have the Mangold interview played in slow motion, the slower the better, and see what his microexpressions were during the interview. (I do not have access to such super-slomo equipment myself. Someone friendly to you in the media would be your best bet). I would be willing to bet that Mangold’s microexpressions during the interview were of high anxiety verging on panic.

I also suggest you get hold of other Mangold TV performances and compare the micro-expressions and non-verbal behaviours on those with Mangold’s performance on the GMTV Programme.

Andrew Gilligan

Gilligan’s article “Those who say David was murdered are so wrong” (The Evening Standard 24 July 2006) is, if anything, even odder than Mangold’s TV performance. Gilligan begins the article by suggesting why Kelly was not an obvious suicide candidate, viz:

“As well as being upset, I was very, very surprised. I hadn’t known David all that well – I’d never met his family, for instance – but he didn’t strike me as the suicidal type, if there is such a thing.”

“He was quite used to confrontation and pressure: he’d been a weapons inspector in Iraq, for goodness sake. I thought his famous grilling by the Foreign Affairs Committee had been distasteful, and symptomatic of the committee’s stupidity, but it hadn’t been that bad.

“And anyway, the affair was basically over: Parliament was about to break for the summer recess, the BBC had refused to confirm or deny whether David was my source, and the battle between Downing Street  and the BBC had reached stalemate. Politics was closing down for a month. The row between the Government and BBC was essentially a  diversion. All those spin-doctors, toady New Labour journalists and compliant MPs who had helped to keep it bubbling for the previous few weeks were about to disperse to Tuscan poolsides.

“All David had to do was keep his head down and it would go away. The Government, I thought, was unlikely to discipline him for the partial admissions he had made about his contacts with me. They needed him more than he needed them. If anyone was going to find Tony Blair some weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it was David Kelly.

“Such were my thoughts on that morning of 18 July 2003, thoughts that made me, at first, question whether David did actually kill himself…”

All fine and dandy, but then Gilligan proceeds to give a string of arguments for why suicide is the best bet to explain Kelly’s death. These always either take the official line or adopts a line which explains inconsistencies and anomalies away, viz:

“Even if the motives for David to kill himself do not, on the face of it, seem quite strong enough, the motives for anyone else to kill him are far, far weaker. In whose interests can it possibly have been to murder David Kelly? The Government’s? But his death plunged the Government and New Labour into the greatest crisis in its history, a crisis from which it has still not recovered, a crisis that has some claim to be the turning point in the Blair premiership.

“The intelligence services? But even if you accept the (wildly false) premise that MI5 and MI6 are rogue states within a state, popping off their own citizens whenever they feel like it, why on earth would they want to kill Kelly? His death didn’t do them much good, either.

“The Iraqis? The Saddam regime had dissolved weeks before and its members were hiding in holes. The Americans? Not without British permission, surely – and, again, where’s the motive?

“Looking at Baker’s dossier, I notice that most of the “new questions” it raises are actually quite old. The most important piece of evidence questioning the official explanation is a letter written by three (later five) doctors to The Guardian newspaper as long ago as January 2004, providing statistics which showed that it was unlikely for death to be caused by slashing a minor artery, as David had done, and questioning the toxicity of the co-proxamol painkillers in his blood.

“Baker has gone a little further, revealing the important fact that only one person – David Kelly – died in this way in the UK during the whole of 2003.

“However, Chris Milroy, professor of forensic pathology at the University of Sheffield, points out that “the problem with the use of statistics in any single case is that ‘unlikely’ does not make it impossible”. Furthermore, he said, “the toxicology [on Kelly] showed a significant overdose of co-proxamol”.

“There is also the argument that there was very little blood around David when he was discovered. Two ambulance workers who attended him, Dave Bartlett and Vanessa Hunt, said they would expect to find several pints of blood around someone who had died through slashing a wrist. They believe it “incredibly unlikely” that David died from the wound they saw.

“David Kelly’s place of death was, however, a field. Professor Milroy and another forensic pathologist, Professor Guy Rutty, suggested that the blood could easily have seeped into the ground.

“Another explanation, said Professor Milroy, might be that David’s heart condition may have made it difficult for him to sustain any significant blood loss.

“Baker also says that calls to David’s mobile were not checked by the police.

“If the evidence of the police to Hutton is to be believed, they were checked. There is also some confusion about the position of the body, with different accounts from different witnesses. But eyewitnesses, as we know from the Jean Charles de Menezes case, are seldom consistent and not always reliable…

“Lord Hutton had many failings. But the verdict of suicide on David Kelly was almost certainly one of the few things he got right.

Some of these arguments are absurd, for example the claim “…even if you accept the (wildly false) premise that MI5 and MI6 are rogue states within a state…” By definition Gilligan cannot know whether they do or not. Or how about the idea that Kelly could not have killed by the state because it embarrassed the Blair government? Kelly might well have been in a position to do far more than embarrass Blair and co. Ditto the intelligence services British and foreign.

Other arguments, such as those regarding blood soaking into the turf where Kelly was found, improbable – even if the blood had soaked in it would still have left a large surface stain. Gilligan always takes an explanation against suicide whether it is probable or not. One or even two improbable arguments might be accepted as reasonable as part of an explanation, a string of them cannot be,

As with Mangold’s behaviour, Gilligan’s article could be interpreted as someone trying to signal that what he was saying he did not believe by making it so over the top as to be absurd.

The behaviour of the Kelly family, the media and politicians since

Hutton

The behaviour of the surviving members of the Kelly family has been of the same general quality as that of Mangold and Gilligan: ostensibly they have bought into what might be called the elite version of his death. This version has two strands: the “suicide” and the misbehaviour of the Government leading to Kelly taking his life. Mrs Kelly and her daughter accepted both strands early in the investigation into his death and by their evidence to the Kelly Enquiry were strident about the Government driving David Kelly to his death.

I wonder if I am alone in finding this behaviour more than a little odd. First of all, one might have expected some members of Kelly’s family to have different views. Second, would not any family in the circumstances have had at least suspicions that his death was not suicide?

Soon after Kelly’s death his wife Janice the New York Times reported that: “Mrs Kelly told the paper her husband had been under enormous stress ‘as we all had been’, but she had no indication he was contemplating suicide.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3080795stm – 19 7 2003). If she did think that, why on earth would she so readily accept the suicide story when there were so many features about it which suggested otherwise?

The same willingness to accept the “suicide version” is found amongst politicians and the mainstream media.

Why is almost everyone who could be and should be expressing public doubts so determined not to? It is one of two things: either people have been directly threatened by the state or agents working covertly for the state – I suspect this has happened to the Kelly family, Mangold and Gilligan – or people are being driven to keep quiet because of the natural fear people feel when faced with the powerful, i.e., they feel instinctively that to question Kelly’s death is dangerous.

Mai Pedersen

During the Hutton Enquiry there were persistent reports that the CIA operative Mai Pedersen might appear at the hearings. She never did despite being someone who would in all probability have been a valuable witness. Here is what the Times reported (“American was Kelly’s spiritual mentor”, 1 September 2003) at the time:

“The role of Mai Pederson, a US military linguist, in bringing Dr Kelly to the Baha’i faith was highlighted by Mrs Marilyn VonBerg, who was secretary of the local Baha’i assembly in Monterey, California, when Dr Kelly converted there in 1999.

“Mrs VonBerg said Sgt Pederson was “very close” to Dr Kelly’s family and had visited them some time before his death. “He and Mai were friends because she had taught him the faith. She is high security so we never asked them questions. But I am sure she was his translator at one point.” The VonBerg family received a call from Ms Pederson, an Arabic-speaker who holds the rank of senior staff sergeant, to inform them of Dr Kelly’s apparent suicide on July 17.

“All she said is: ‘Don’t believe what you read in the newspapers,” John VonBerg said. “I do not know which direction she was coming from. It’s very mysterious to us.”[ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7813-00123,00.html]

If she did say that, it is not merely intriguing but it shows she is not exactly the tight-lipped spy. If you could get an interview with her I suspect you might find her rather indiscreet.

If there is anything else I can do to help your enquiry I shall be more than happy to do it.

You may reproduce, circulate and make public any information I send you.

Your sincerely,

Robert Henderson

————————————————————————–

Norman Baker MP

(LibDem Lewes)

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SW1A OAA

Dear Mr Henderson,

Thank you very much for you long and helpful email, concerning my investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly.

I am determined to get to the bottom of this matter, but I am sure you, more than most, will understand that it would not be prudent for me to set down my thoughts in too much detail on paper at this point. To do so I fear might preclude further progress in my enquiries, at least in so far as certain directions are concerned.

You may be interested to know that I am due to see Tom Mangold shortly, at my request, and I am sure the meeting will be an interesting one. You ask if there is anything you can do to help. You do in fact make some points about the use of microexpressions and it might be helpful if you were able to carry out the sort of analysis you refer to in your email. I do not in fact have the equipment and it is clear that you know more about what ought to be looked for than I do. If you were able to do this then that would be a helpful contribution to my enquiries. If however you are not able to then I would quite understand.

In any case, thank you very much for writing.

Norman Baker MP

11 September 2006

Our ref: HR1 109-Kelly Affair\cc

Norman Baker MP

————————————————————————–

Norman Baker MP

House of Commons

18 9 2006

Dear Mr Baker,

Thank you for your letter of 11 Sept. I would be more than happy to give an analysis of Mangold’s microexpressions but I regret that I do not have access to the requisite “slo-mo” equipment. If you can gain access to such equipment – a contact in broadcasting would be the place to start – I will give you an analysis. However, for public credibility you would need to get a professional working in the area (a psychologist most probably) to give you a “formal” assessment of Mangold’s microexpressions (or anyone else’s).

When you meet Mangold I suggest you concentrate on the two startling discrepancies in his evidence to Hutton compared with his later statements, most notably on the GMTV programme. First is his relationship with Kelly. In the GMTV interview Mangold claimed that he was a close friend of Kelly. In fact, he did not meet him until 1998 and so knew Kelly for five years at most. Then there is his testimony to Hutton, viz (he was questioned by Mr Knox):

11 Q. How frequently would you speak to him over the years?

12 A. It was not that frequent. I spoke to him whenever I had

13 a query about biological warfare or occasionally

14 chemical warfare subjects. But it was not a frequent

15 relationship.

16 Q. Would these be unattributable briefings?

17 A. Sometimes they were; but the major interview for the

18 book he came to my home and I spoke to him for about

19 eight hours in one day and that was on the record, that

20 was attributable.

21 Q. And his name is mentioned in the book.

22 A. Yes, yes.

23 Q. You would meet him sometimes. Would you be able to say

24 roughly how often you would meet him?

25 A. I would say, on balance, maybe twice a year.

61

1 Q. And when you spoke to each other, it was generally just

2 on professional matters –

3 A. Always.

4 Q. — or other matters as well?

5 A. But I spoke to him on the phone much more than I met

6 him.

7 Q. In those telephone conversations, what did you talk

8 about?

9 A. Biological warfare.”

Note that not only did Mangold say his relationship with Kelly was infrequent and professional, he ignores the double invitation from Knox to expand his answer from his claim that they discussed only “professional matters”, viz: “or other matters as well?” and “In those telephone conversations, what did you talk about?”

The second contradiction concerns his melodramatic claim during the GMTV interview that “I think Janice [Kelly] realised something awful had happened to David mentally. She went upstairs and was sick a couple of times. I think she had already decided that she was beginning to lose David…”

His evidence to Hutton runs:

8 Q. Did you speak to Mrs Kelly on 17th or 18th July?

9 A. Yes, I did, yes. I received a phone call on that day,

10 somewhere around 9 to 9.15, telling me that David Kelly

11 was missing.

12 Q. And you then spoke to Mrs Kelly?

13 A. Yes. I sat down and thought about that quite carefully;

14 and then I spoke to Jan, yes.

15 Q. And what did she tell you?

16 A. Well, I had very mixed emotions on that day. I knew the

17 moment I got the phone call at 9 o’clock in the morning,

18 I knew that he had to be dead because David Kelly did

19 not go missing. If he was missing, he was dead. So

20 I had a slightly difficult phone call with Janice. She

21 was still fairly upbeat and felt that he must have had

22 a heart attack or a stroke and was — she felt he was

23 lying in a field, you know, waiting to be found.

The phone call was only “slightly difficult” and Janice Kelly was “still fairly upbeat” and “felt he must have had a heart attack or stroke…”. No suggestion that she had given up hope in some mysterious way even before he went missing or that she believed him to be suicidal.

It might seem strange to you that an educated intelligent man such as Mangold would contradict himself in such a fashion. He must, you may argue to yourself, have known when he gave the GMTV interview that the contradictions would be obvious because both would be on the public record, so why put himself in such an awkward position?

Mangold’s behaviour is readily understandable. I used to see it regularly when I worked for the Revenue. People would tell me lies which they knew I could immediately demonstrate to be lies. For example, an employer would claim he did not allow overtime. I would find overtime sheets which did not appear in the wage records. I would then interview the employer again with the overtime sheets in front of me and ask whether he paid overtime. More often than not the employer would deny it again despite the fact that he was staring at the overtime sheets which he knew would immediately prove him a liar.

The reason that people behave in this seemingly bizarre fashion is simple: they become psychologically paralysed and are incapable of behaving rationally, because the acceptance of reality is simply too painful or frightening. That is what has happened to Mangold. Part of him knows that his latest story is unsustainable because of his previous public statements, but whatever is making him do what he is now doing – almost certainly pure undiluted fear – is simply too difficult for him to confront.

Because of all this Mangold will be in a delicate mental state when you meet him. If you keep banging away at these two central contradictions – his bogus friendship with Kelly and his varying accounts of the wife’s state after the death – over and over again from my experience there is a fair chance that Mangold will lose control. If he does, he will probably become either violently abusive or break down and tell you at least some of the truth, even if it is in a disjointed form. Either behaviour provides you will valuable information about Mangold.

Kelly’s “training”

I have also been foraging generally around on the Hutton website. Two emails from Kelly on the 5th and 8th of July 2003 – urls below – refer to “training” he was undergoing. It is probably a dead end but just possibly the “training” might be a pointer to his killer or add something useful to the circumstantial knowledge surrounding his death. I suggest you try to find out what the “training” was and who was involved. The urls are:

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/com_4_0088.pdf

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/com_4_0089.pdf

The Kelly Family

The behaviour of the Kelly Family suggests they have been frightened into going along with the suicide line. If so, a carrot or carrots have  probably been introduced to balance the stick of threat (the same applies to Mangold and Gilligan). I suggest you try to find out what Mrs Kelly has received by way of Civil Service widow’s pension and gratuity. These are standard figures based on years of service so cannot be fudged.

If Mrs Kelly has received anything more than her strict entitlement that would suggest foul play. You should be able to get the data, directly or indirectly, with a Commons question or use of the FOIA. If you cannot get details of an individual, put in a request for the anonymised details of all pensions/gratuities larger than those which are catered for in the regulations paid out the spouses of those in Kelly’s department who died in 2003.

Following the same track, try to discover what private insurances Kelly had against his life and whether these were (1) claimed by Mrs Kelly and (2) paid in full or part. The amounts he was insured for, if any, would be useful both as evidence of why he would not have committed suicide (commit suicide and wife loses X) and to compare with what Mrs Kelly (or any other member of her family) has received from the state (the state may have compensated Mrs Kelly for any lost private insurances).

In an ideal world you would also want access to all of Kelly’s bank accounts and those of his family, especially that of Mrs Kelly, to see if any unaccountable money has been introduced into them before or since Kelly’s death.

Finally, find out the value of Kelly’s estate – this will be public knowledge.

Yours sincerely,

Robert Henderson

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 184 other followers

%d bloggers like this: