Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

David Kelly post mortem to be kept secret for 70 years as doctors accuse Lord Hutton of concealing..
Daily Mail ^ | 23 January 2010 | By Miles Goslett

Posted on 01/23/2010 7:38:37 PM PST by BlackVeil

Vital evidence which could solve the mystery of the death of Government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly will be kept under wraps for up to 70 years.

In a draconian – and highly unusual – order, Lord Hutton, the peer who chaired the controversial inquiry into the Dr Kelly scandal, has secretly barred the release of all medical records, including the results of the post mortem, and unpublished evidence. The move, which will stoke fresh speculation about the true circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death, comes just days before Tony Blair appears before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War.

It is also bound to revive claims of an establishment cover-up and fresh questions about the verdict that Dr Kelly killed himself.

Tonight, Dr Michael Powers QC, a doctor campaigning to overturn the Hutton findings, said: ‘What is it about David Kelly’s death which is so secret as to justify these reports being kept out of the public domain for 70 years?’

Campaigning Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who has also questioned the verdict that Dr Kelly committed suicide, said: ‘It is astonishing 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.’

The body of former United Nations weapons inspector Dr Kelly was found in July 2003 in woods close to his Oxfordshire home, shortly after he was exposed as the source of a BBC news report questioning the Government’s claims that Saddam Hussein had an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, which could be deployed within 45 minutes.

(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: biowarfare; coverup; davidkelly; iraqwar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last
I never believed he killed himself.
1 posted on 01/23/2010 7:38:39 PM PST by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: BlackVeil

I never understood why Bush and Blair had to hang their entire war rationale on WMD.


2 posted on 01/23/2010 7:44:52 PM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Well I never quite understood why the liberal world promised old Saddam they would ‘save’ his sorry behind. Now just maybe the WMDs that even the Clintons advertised existed when wild Bill Cohen and Maddie Albright demonstrated with that sack of sugar being represented of old Saddam's available anthrax as threat to US got removed from Iraq and taken to another spot on this globe.

Were the Clintons lying when they made all these claims?

3 posted on 01/23/2010 7:52:15 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Were the Clintons lying when they made all these claims?

My guess is yes they were.

4 posted on 01/23/2010 7:55:10 PM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

:::sigh::: For the trillionth time, they didn’t.


5 posted on 01/23/2010 8:01:58 PM PST by PackerBoy (Just my opinion ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
My guess is yes they were.

Oh, I do not believe for one minute they were lying, too easy to for old Saddam to say come on in UN inspectors and show the Clintons to be liars. No I believe that those WMDs existed and a 'deal' was made for them in large part ferried out on that road to Damascus and flights out by the 'Soviet' Saddam advisers.

See old Saddam was hoping to sell his oil out for the promise to get the same deal as the N.Koreans and Iran got to go nuclear. And those that were in on the UN scam of 'oil for rotten food' were all about making whatever deals they could to gain the global oil control advantage.

I sure wish I saved the article, but during the Clinton years old Saddam was stocking upon on some 'video' game systems for the electronics as means to end game around the sanctions set upon him at the end of the gulf war.

6 posted on 01/23/2010 8:07:19 PM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BlackVeil

I don’t know what happened, but I find it rather difficult to believe that Tony Blair ordered him offed because he said that Saddam had no WMDs.

Yes, the handling of the case is very odd, and makes you wonder what on earth is going on. But I think I’ll pass on this. Because Saddam obviously DID have WMDs, and I doubt whether the sudden death of a weapons inspector was a logical way for the politicians to argue their case.


7 posted on 01/23/2010 8:11:32 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
For cripes sake already.

8 posted on 01/23/2010 8:21:17 PM PST by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Why cover it up for 70 years then? The same goes with the government framing Scott Ritter for the third time. LOL.


9 posted on 01/23/2010 8:23:49 PM PST by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BlackVeil

Nobody seems to remember that Sadaam was actually tried and convicted (”found guilty”) by the United Nations. He was found guilty of not conforming to weapons inspection mandates and for possesing various types of WMD’s and laboratories. After that, the media and Democrates turned the whole thing into an easter egg hunt. Does a bank robber, after being found guilty, get off the hook because thay never found the stolen money? Answer = NO. Once you are found guilty you “stay” guilty unless a good lawyer can prove otherwise. In legal sense, Sadaam is still guilty and has not otherwise been proven innocent. In fact his own people by a legal jury trial hung him by the neck until dead for genocide, war crimes, torture and other in-humane atrocities. In non-legal sense, the Democrates (even after looking at all the evidence and after voting to remove him) overturned his guilt and found him innocent in the jury of public opinion.


10 posted on 01/23/2010 9:02:39 PM PST by rwoodward (Lucas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
"I never understood why Bush and Blair had to hang their entire war rationale on WMD."

They absolutely did not. Saddam had abrogated the terms of the 1991 armistice many times over. Bush had every right to start things up again and finish the job. And he didn't need UN approval to do tit.
11 posted on 01/23/2010 9:35:54 PM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast (Obama: running for re-election in '12 or running for Mahdi now? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahdi])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
I never understood why Bush and Blair had to hang their entire war rationale on WMD.

What's it like to have the lame-stream-media control what you believe?

12 posted on 01/23/2010 9:44:23 PM PST by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast

I am glad someone else has said what I have been saying for years. People honestly have absolutely no idea. The WMD was just one of over a dozen points, any one of which in itself was justification.


13 posted on 01/23/2010 10:22:56 PM PST by August West (Pink Kool Aid, Green Kool-Aid; it doesn't matter, as long as they drink it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear; RightOnTheLeftCoast; Just mythoughts; PackerBoy
Some of you need to read more carefully before you reply. The question remains why Bush based his war rational entirely on WMD when there were other better reasons for the war? As for lying about WMD, I was responding to a question about the Clintons. Sheesh!!!
14 posted on 01/23/2010 11:14:28 PM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RightOnTheLeftCoast
They absolutely did not. Saddam had abrogated the terms of the 1991 armistice many times over. Bush had every right to start things up again and finish the job. And he didn't need UN approval to do tit.

Your second sentence is correct, but the first isn't. Bush explicitly stated the war is only about WMD. He passed up every opportunity to justify the war on any other grounds. I have never understood why.

15 posted on 01/23/2010 11:19:46 PM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp; RightOnTheLeftCoast; Just mythoughts; PackerBoy
Some of you need to read more carefully before you reply. The question remains why Bush based his war rational entirely on WMD when there were other better reasons for the war?

You need to read responses more carefully before you dissolve into a dramatic case of the vapors.

President Bush did not base his war rational entirely on WMD. Stop depending on the progressive-liberal eneMedia for your information and think for yourself. It might seem scary at first but you'll find it liberating.

16 posted on 01/23/2010 11:21:19 PM PST by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
President Bush did not base his war rational entirely on WMD.

Show me where he made another justification.

Many other justifications were offered by pundits and even by people in the administration, but Bush shot them down. He said it was only about WMD.

17 posted on 01/23/2010 11:25:34 PM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp; RightOnTheLeftCoast; Just mythoughts; PackerBoy; SandRat; Allegra
Many other justifications were offered by pundits and even by people in the administration, but Bush shot them down. He said it was only about WMD.

You sound like a progressive-lib parrot. Stop listening to Code Pink and Michael Moore and turn to more reliable information resources.

In a press conference during the days leading up to the the second Gulf War, President Bush cited several reasons for war. Saddam Hussein's violation of the UN's cease fire agreement was one of the chief reasons.

Now it's your turn. Put up or shut up. When did President Bush say it was "only about WMD."

18 posted on 01/23/2010 11:39:26 PM PST by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Grizzled Bear
Nice try.

Now show me the video or a transcript.

19 posted on 01/23/2010 11:41:10 PM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
Nice try.
Now show me the video or a transcript.

Sure thing skippy; right after you show me the video or a transcript of Pres Bush saying "it was only about WMD.

That's your standard of proof, I'm sure you'll meet it. Only a hypocrite would refuse to meet his own standards of proof.

20 posted on 01/23/2010 11:45:19 PM PST by Grizzled Bear (Does not play well with others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson