in Blog

Ten questions from Peter Beswick of the David Kelly Campaign Group

David Kelly campaigner Peter Beswick has supplied ten questions for me to answer as regards the Hutton Inquiry. He and I have different opinions about Kelly’s death, and Peter initially suspected I was some sort of SIS plant. I thought this exchange might illustrate why we differ, and could prove helpful for anyone who is interested in the subject. These questions are an abridged version of an earlier comment by Peter which I have held back on until I was able to contact my handlers for further instructions.*

1. What makes you think Hutton covered up Kelly’s relationships with various intelligence services? And what specifically do you think was covered up?

Hutton omits or belittles the truth that Kelly helped British, American and Israeli governments subvert UNSCOM and UNMOVIC. He sees no disinformation in the inspection process or the drive to war. Indeed he closes his eyes to all Western intelligence activity within the inspectorates. The refusal to countenance this aspect closes several lines of inquiry.

2. What specifically do you think the Hutton inquiry covered up regarding the reality of UK’s foreign policy?

That it was illegal, that it was justified by lies, and that it was ruinously destructive towards Iraq. Hutton is not prepared to ascribe to Kelly any kind of posthumous whistleblower’s defence. Ironically, he is right in doing so: Kelly was no whistleblower.

3. What do you believe were the precise nature of the pressures that drove Kelly to kill himself? The ones that Hutton covered up?

I explain in my book that Kelly had been told he had lost his security clearance. As well as exiling him from his professional world, this would also have triggered an investigation into his personal life which threatened to be deliberately invasive. Imagine it as something that looks, in a best-case scenario, like a smear campaign, and in a worst-case scenario, state blackmail.

Further, Kelly was a loyal civil servant, but his masters lay in SIS, not the MOD, and certainly not DSTL. He was still obliged to keep his work for SIS secret, and he did so up until his death. His loyalty towards SIS was an additional pressure.

Kelly also had certain personal obligations towards the Iraqi scientists he had alternately courted and intimidated for over a decade. He had made all kinds of threats and inducements towards them in secret. Concerns over the treatment of these scientists, all now high value detainees in various military prisons, may have contributed to his mental state. Certainly they appear to have bothered his colleague Rod Barton, who spoke to the media of their mistreatment.

4. Where do you think Kelly stayed on the night of 9th July 2003 and why do you think Janice Kelly went along with the elaborate tale of the flight to Weston Super Mare as described?

I think she and David stayed at an SIS safe house much nearer to home, and she went along with the Weston story because like her husband, she was loyal towards the service, and sought to protect it. There are operational and legal reasons why you might not disclose these things in public, particularly if they are immaterial to Kelly’s death.

5. Why do you think Hutton covered up the repositioning of the body after it was found by the search team?

He didn’t cover it up, perhaps the opposite. Without the testimony of witnesses at the Hutton Inquiry, you wouldn’t know the body had been moved at all. But he did ignore it, one assumes because he judged it to be immaterial. He did the same thing about the third man who was accompanying DC Coe, who we can safely assume was an officer of MI5 or MI6. I have little doubt that Kelly’s body was searched by the intelligence services prior to being handed over to Thames Valley Constabulary, and that such privileged access would be routine for someone of Kelly’s importance. Hutton, like Mrs Kelly, glosses over the activities of SIS as much as humanly possible.

6. What is your take on the disappearing / reappearing dental records, why Page misled the inquiry regarding the fingerprints and why they were only replaced after Kelly’s death? Given that they were most probably taken on the night of 9th July.

My take is that it was probably a mistake on the part of the dental surgery and the records were just misfiled. I can’t see why anyone would need dental records; I can’t see why anyone would physically remove the records instead of snap them with a camera; I can’t see why anyone, having stolen the records, would risk discovery twice by sneaking in to replace them. One could ask the dental surgery, of course.

7. What do you make of Gilligans revelations that he was told by journalist Mike Smith that the police were looking for a body. The police knew Kelly was dead before the body was found. And his boss Sambrook was informed painkillers were involved several hours before the blister packs were found in Kelly’s coat pocket by the forensic team?

My memory might have gone, but this is news to me. When did Gilligan say all this, and to whom? He didn’t mention any of this at Hutton. There is a quality of Chinese whispers to it. For now I can only add that, if you worried Kelly had sought to kill himself, it would have been perfectly natural to check the Co-Praxamol packs in the house, and see if any were missing.

8. DC Coe misled the inquiry about who accompanied him to the scene, the position of the body when he said he first saw it, how long he remained at the scene after the ambulance crew arrived and what he did in the two hours that he remained when he said he wasn’t there. He also misled the inquiry about his involvement in the search of Kelly’s home. What do you make of this?

See my answer to question five. The spooks were there first, and Coe was with one of them.

9. Evidence heard at Hutton (supplemented by forensic reports) indicates that 10 times more blood was witnessed on the right knee Dr Kelly jeans in the afternoon than was witnessed in the morning, a similar size stain was witnessed on the left knee but that had been diluted. In the morning the stain was described variously as the size of a 10p, the size of a 50p and 25mm in diameter. In the afternoon the stain was measured by the forensic team as 80mm in diameter, an area increase of more than 10 times. What do you think was going on?

Responding to this off the cuff, it would seem the stain grew a bit by the time it was measured by the forensics team. The body may only have to have been moved very slightly for this to happen. I suppose it is even possible that it might not have to be moved at all, perhaps some very small post-death blood flow from an open would occur during decomposition. The difference in the volume of blood needed to make an 80mm stain as opposed to a 25mm stain is only a few drops. Alternately, the forensics team may have measured the stain on the inside of the fabric, where it would appear bigger.

10. Mai Pederson’s lawyer had supplied the police with a 10 page witness statement 2 weeks before Page took the stand and said she had declined to give a statement. Why do you think that was and do you think her statement would have been useful?

I can tell you that Mai Pederson isn’t in the mood to talk about any of this anymore. Most of the lying at the Inquiry was done to obscure the intervention of MI5 and MI6. If you’re a police officer I am sure it is a requirement of your job that you never reveal your relationships (if any) with either service. But Assistant Chief Constable Michael Page’s comment that Pederson added absolutely nothing to his inquiry is an absolute whopper. I honestly don’t think he knew what was in her ten page report, or what she said at interview. In suppressing this evidence he had no way of knowing she wouldn’t then give an interview to the British media, for example, which is exactly what she did. I can only conjecture that Pederson’s report never found its way into the Thames Valley Investigation, and that she was interviewed by people other than Thames Valley police officers. Probably she was interviewed by MI6, MI5, or Special Branch, who were nominally “helping” out. Nobody from these organisations would owe any obligation to pass on sensitive material to normal constabularies, and it may have been suppressed by them, rather than Page. They would simply lie to him about what was said. It would also express Page’s curious expression that “she declined to give a statement as such”, because intelligence officers wouldn’t be able to take one down.

Pederson’s press interviews reveal that she had a reasonably intimate knowledge of David Kelly. She knew he had an elbow injury, for example. As for his difficulty swallowing pills, I was never able to verify it. Her statement should absolutely have found its way into the Inquiry, even if it pointed in the wrong direction. Pederson, like Norman Baker and Richard Spertzel, is of the opinion he was murdered by Iraqi intelligence. I find this implausible. The capability of Iraqi intelligence in Britain in July 2003 was nil. It was not much better inside Iraq. I don’t understand why they would want to kill Kelly either. The weapons inspectors inside Iraq were much easier targets, and I don’t think any attempt was ever made on any of them, during the inspections or after the war. During the occupation Charles Duelfer was in a Humvee that got hit by an IED, but I don’t know that he was targeted specifically.

One aspect of Pederson’s press interviews, then, is the vilification of Saddam’s Iraq, using Kelly’s death to further the same goal he pursued in his working life. You’ll also notice that few newspapers were able to resist the implication that Pederson and Kelly were sleeping together, even while printing her categorical denial. Tom Mangold has been pushing the idea of a Kelly-Pederson affair for years, but he can’t make the story stand up. These journalists did not arrive at this conclusion on their own. They were led there, and I refer you to my third answer. There were individuals priming to smear Kelly at the time of his death.





Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Write a Comment


  1. I got the joke Robert but would have preferred you to answer the questions I put rather than the abridged versions that you wanted to answer.

    I suspect you are right about the 3rd man, may even have been CIA as Coe was more likely to be Special Branch and as such had the interests of our secret services notionally covered.

    But lets go along with your theory he was a Limey spook. Coe is sent with a colleague plus the spook to conduct house to house interviews in Southmoor. That doesn’t make sense nor does it make sense that he ignored his orders and decided to have a wander towards the river taking his colleague and detachment with him.

    Wandering towards the exact spot where Kelly’s body had been found. There is a precedent for this Thames Valley police had identified six locations where they thought they might find Kelly, they had at their disposal twelve volunteers and a few dogs, enough to search all six spots. I suppose they got lucky when they only picked number 2 on the list of places and picked only one search team who were sent to search the spot where they found the body.

    Or it may just be that Gilligan was right and not only were the police looking for a body but also knew where to the body was.

    It wasn’t the first of a series of embarrassing cock ups that day nor the last but bumping into the search team was a cracker.

    I’m surprised that you didn’t know about what Gilligan knew;

    You may be also interested to learn that the helicopter that landed around 11am had three people on board but when it took off it had four.

    Thank you for taking the time to answer some of my questions, I was going to critique each in one in turn but knowing you don’t like that type of thing I resisted. The answers you gave are most revealing.

    ps, you can’t photograph xrays easily, the “extraneous” fingerprints on the dental ones are still a puzzle as is why Page misled the inquiry about them.

    • Peter, your earlier comment contained ten questions, as you specified. I copy and pasted them here for readibility’s sake only as they were contained within a lot of text. I did email you about this some days before but received no reply. If there are additional questions you would like to answer me I shall do so here, time permitting.

      Thank you for link to the Andrew Gilligan article in The Telegraph. Assuming Gilligan’s recollection of Mick Smith’s phone call is correct, then the police were clearly expecting a body. Their expectation of suicide appears to have been shared by Kelly’s immediate family too. Richard Sambrook’s comments come after the body was found, and it was searched as soon is it was found, so I find nothing exceptional about Sambrook’s knowledge here. Coe’s stated rationale for being in Southmoor that morning fits the same pattern as his lies about the third man and his lies about the body being searched prior to the police: he is obscuring his duties for the intelligence services. That the third man could be CIA is perfectly possible, I suppose.

      • Don’t get me wrong Robert, I was very pleased to see your response except the “a lot of text” that you deleted contained the context of the questions.

        No didn’t recieve your email, not in spam either.

        The remarkable thing about Sambrooks knowledge is that as soon as the body was found someone took the trouble to make sure Sambrook was told and given the suicide angle.

        Sorry no didn’t recieve your email.

        • There were categoric denials at the Hutton i that Kelly had his (UK) security clearance removed including by the man responsible for the process. This was confirmed years later in a FOIR.

          What hasn’t been stated is that Kelly had his US clearance revoked rendering his UK clearance useless.

          But Kelly wasn’t interested in staying in that field of work after his retirement, he told his friend and colleague Rod Godfrey as much.

          Removal of his security clearance would not create any great hardship for Kelly other than bringing his retirement forward a few months.

          Yes there would have been an investigation but that would be kept secret, the publicity would be more damaging to HMG than Kelly. SO12 were poised to arrest Kelly but that would have put HMG is a worse light than they were already.

          I have yet to hear one plausible explanation as to why Kelly would want to kill himself or why, if he did, did he do it in such an implausible and unworthy manner.

          • With UK politicians and officials smearing Dr Kelly’s character and the CIA frustrating his efforts it is not a surprise that Kelly was coming to the conclusion that carrying on after retirement was not a realistic proposition, losing his security clearance was now an incosequential formality (for Kelly). not one to lose sleep over, certainly not one to commit suicide over.

            Mr A, Rod Godfrey at the Hutton i

            ” Q. Had you ever discussed retirement plans or Dr Kelly’s retirement plans?
            A. We often did. He was approaching the end of a long and meritorious career and he still had, he believed, a lot to offer. It was unclear to him exactly how he would deal with his retirement. But a significant change did occur over the period of the winter 2002 to the spring of 2003.
            Q. What was that change?
            A. I would say that before the autumn of 2002 he had every intention of working in an official/semi-official or academic capacity in the field which he had made his own for the past 30 years. But when we discussed the subject in May or June of 2003 he did say to me that the events of the winter and the spring had made him think very seriously as to whether his previous ideas of continuing on were realistic and maybe he ought to just draw a line under the whole experience when it was over.”

            Terence Taylor at the Hi

            “Q. As far as you knew, was he looking forward to going back to Iraq or was he not looking forward to that?
            A. He was looking forward to the challenge of going to Iraq. He — the only point that I would say where he was — had expressed some negative thought, if I could put it that way, was that he was worried about — concerned about his colleagues. He knew there had been discussions about their consulting arrangements and so on. Somehow that irritated him a little bit. And he seemed to be concerned about his relationship with them once he got to Iraq. He said — I think his words were to the effect that: my relationships with them would not be quite the same again as they were in the past. These were colleagues with whom he had done many inspections in Iraq. But at the time that did not seem to me to be particularly remarkable. It was not said in a very strong form, but that was the only point that perhaps was a little negative.
            Q. Which colleagues were those? Those were the United Nations colleagues or Ministry of Defence colleagues?
            A. No, these were members of the coalition — what is now called the Iraq Survey Group.
            Q. Did he indicate why his relations might not be the same?
            A. I think Dr Kelly had a very purposeful sense of mission, very sort of dedicated approach to it. And I think people going as consultants, I think it mildly irritated him is probably the best way I could put it, and so he felt that a difference in terms of dedication to the mission, if I might put it that way. I think I would be speculating if I went further than that”

  2. Sgt Webb Hutton inquiry

    A. To be honest, not really, no. I mean, the Kelly family were very upbeat at that time. They were very hopeful that no harm had come to Dr Kelly. In fact, they genuinely believed I think that perhaps he had become ill somewhere.
    Q. Were you joined by anyone?
    A. I was joined by WPC Karen Roberts, yes, slightly later that same morning.
    Q. What was her role?
    A. She was going to take on the role of being a family liaison officer and really to look after the Kelly family, you know, during the following inquiry.
    Q. How long did you stay at the house for?
    A. I left the house at about 8 am to return to Abingdon police station.

    Robert why do you think the family were expecting Kelly to have committed suicide?

    It is interesting that Roberts’ role was to look after the family during the following inquiry. BEFORE the body was found. She guarded Mrs Kelly from the prying press but was also able to facilitate Mrs Kelly accepting ‘phone calls from Mangold and Miller. Mrs K also assisted with promulgating the suicide conclusion at a very early satge.

    The ambulance crew were held at the site and forbidden from using their radio to call base because of a news blackout but Sambrook was able to pick up the news directly from the police (suicide, knife and painkillers) before the ambulance crew were permitted to leave the scene.

    It may have taken you years to come to the suicide conclusion Robert, others were far quicker out of the blocks.

    No plausible explanation for the motives for suicide, no plausible explanation method of suicide, no plausible explanation for the cover up.

    PS it was Roberts who confirmed to the inquiry that Kelly was right handed. (ie objects next to body; cap, knife, bottle, bottle top and watch with the exception of the cap were on the wrong side of the body. The cap covered a pool of blood. The blood pool was under the wrist (where you would expect it to be) when the body was slumped against the tree, when the body was moved the blood pool was in the wrong place, above and to the the left of the head of the body. The bottle with one set of fingerprints (not Kelly’s) was moved 6 inches further away from the body and propped against a branch when the ambulance technician pointed out to a police officer that it would not be standing where it was when he was present, when he was there the bottle was empty, “nearly empty” when the forensic team arrived and later still had 111ml of water decanted from it.