An Inconvenient Death

  AN INCONVENIENT DEATH

  How the Establishment Covered Up the David Kelly Affair

  Miles Goslett

  Start Reading

  About this Book

  About the Author

  Table of Contents

  AN APOLLO BOOK

  www.headofzeus.com

  About An Inconvenient Death

  THE DEATH OF DR DAVID KELLY

  In 2003 is one of the strangest events in recent British history. This scrupulous scientist, an expert on weapons of mass destruction, was caught up in the rush to war in Iraq. He felt under pressure from those around Tony Blair to provide evidence that Saddam Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction that could be used to immediate and devastating effect. Kelly seemed to have tipped into sudden depression when he was outed as a source for Andrew Gilligan. Case closed, for Blair, Alastair Campbell and the intelligence agencies.

  But the circumstances of his death are replete with disquieting questions – every detail, from his motives to the method of his death, his body’s discovery and the way in which the state investigated his demise, seems on close examination not to make sense. There was never a full coroner’s inquest into his death, which would have allowed medical and other evidence to be carefully interrogated.

  In this painstaking and meticulous book, Miles Goslett shows why we should be deeply sceptical of the official narrative and reminds us of the desperate measures those in power resorted to in that feverish summer of 2003.

  Contents

  Welcome Page

  About An Inconvenient Death

  Introduction

  Part 1: Life and Death

  The £4.15 scoop

  Campbell counterattacks

  The unmasking of Dr Kelly

  An early visitor

  Pale and tired

  Preparations

  Fall guy?

  Questions, questions

  ‘Many dark actors playing games’

  Gilligan re-grilled

  Ruth Absalom: last witness

  The Disappearance

  Turbulence for Blair

  Searching and finding

  ‘Suspected suicide’

  Bumpy landing in Tokyo

  Dr Kanas and Dr Kelly

  ‘Most honourable of men’

  Constructing the inquiry

  Forensic findings

  Post-mortem

  The New York Times

  Formal identification

  Statements

  ‘Have you got blood on your hands, Prime Minister?’

  Dr Kelly’s dental records

  ‘Did you assassinate him?’

  Speculation

  The Hutton Inquiry

  Part 2: Concerns

  How to side-step an inquest

  Found wanting: the Kelly family’s evidence to the Hutton Inquiry

  Weston-Super-Mare

  Cornwall

  Tea and sympathy

  A curious lack of curiosity

  A body disturbed

  The third man

  The body: a third recollection

  Dr Malcolm Warner

  ACC Page and the dental records

  An unusual letter

  Part 3: A Calling to Account

  Key findings contested

  Mai Pederson

  Blood and pills

  The doctors versus the Attorney General

  Conclusion

  Postscript

  Plate Section

  Appendix 1: Hutton Inquiry witnesses and the dates on which they were called

  Appendix 2: Key witnesses who did not appear at the Hutton Inquiry and the reasons they should have done so

  Afterword

  Acknowledgements

  Index

  About Miles Goslett

  An Invitation from the Publisher

  Copyright

  Introduction

  Shortly after 3 p.m. on Thursday, 17 July 2003, Dr David Kelly left his house in the Oxfordshire village of Southmoor to go for one of his regular short walks. He had changed into a pair of jeans, put his house key in his pocket, and tucked his mobile telephone into a pouch on his belt – the routine actions of a man preparing to do something he had done many times before.

  His wife, Janice, had retired to bed two hours earlier because she felt unwell. He didn’t say goodbye to her or leave a note.

  Within fifteen minutes of setting off, he bumped into a neighbour who was walking her dog. They exchanged a few pleasant, unremarkable words. She then saw him stroll down the road as she turned for home. She was the last person known to have seen Dr Kelly alive.

  Back at the house, Mrs Kelly had recovered sufficiently to go downstairs. When her husband failed to return after a couple of hours she began to feel some unease, but she did not try to ring his mobile phone. Instead, she waited until she was able to share her growing concerns regarding his whereabouts with her youngest daughter, Rachel, who had arranged to meet her father that evening so that they could go for a walk together.

  On hearing the news, Rachel decided the situation warranted some kind of action. First on foot and then in her car, she began tracing the routes that she knew Dr Kelly habitually took. She also contacted her sisters, one of whom was prompted by Rachel’s call to drive seventy miles from her house in Hampshire to join in what was still just a family search. Despite hours of looking, neither daughter found him.

  At 11 p.m. the two women went back to their parents’ house and, with their mother, debated what to do next. Shortly before midnight, they decided they must contact the police to report him missing. By this point, Dr Kelly had not been seen for almost nine hours.

  This was the relatively low-key start to an overnight hunt that would involve more than forty police officers, a police dog, a police helicopter, plus some volunteer searchers, with a mounted police unit and an underwater police search team also being called upon. In the early hours, Metropolitan Police officers from Special Branch were told to search Dr Kelly’s London office, and senior figures in Whitehall were alerted to his disappearance.

  Such an operation, launched so quickly, might have been expected for a top public figure, but Dr Kelly was – officially, at least – a mere civil servant.

  Just after 9 a.m. on Friday, 18 July, two volunteer searchers helping the police found a body matching the description of David Kelly in a wood at Harrowdown Hill, about two miles from his house.

  At the time the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, was on a plane travelling between Washington DC and Tokyo. The Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer, who was in London, rang Blair on the aircraft’s phone within minutes of the body being found and in a surprisingly brief call was instructed to set in motion a full-blown public inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death.

  Falconer established this inquiry several hours before any exact cause of Dr Kelly’s death had been determined officially – and, indeed, before the body found that morning had even been formally identified.

  What could possibly have led Falconer and Blair, the two most senior political figures of the day, to take this unusual step on the basis of what, according to contemporaneous police reports, appeared to be a tragic case of a professional man ending his own life? Why were they even involved at such an early stage in what was essentially an incident that was local to Oxfordshire?

  What was it about the death of David Kelly that had disturbed Falconer and Blair so much that they went on to interrupt and ultimately to derail the coroner’s inquest, which had been opened routinely? And why were they content to replace that inquest with a less rigorous form of investigation into Dr Kelly’s death?

  These questions preoccupied me, as a journalist, for years. They pointed to powerful forces working agains
t the proper investigation of an unexpected event – in this case, a death mired in mystery.

  Then, on 5 November 2014, I heard that a senior civil servant working in the Ministry of Justice had written an extraordinary letter to a man called Gerrard Jonas, a garage owner from Oxfordshire, urging him to stay away from Dr Kelly’s grave. The letter noted that Mr Jonas had been visiting the grave at St Mary’s churchyard in the nearby village of Longworth and, in a thinly veiled threat, advised him to ‘carefully consider’ whether this ‘programme is appropriate and lawful’. It went on to say that a surveillance ‘watch’ had been put on the grave as a result of Mr Jonas’s visits, though this point was worded ambiguously enough for it to remain unclear who had ordered the watch and how it was being policed. The letter was signed Barrie Thurlow, of the Ministry of Justice Coroners, Burial, Cremation and Inquiries Policy Team.

  The tone of the letter certainly supported the idea that a Whitehall department and, maybe, others in officialdom still felt great sensitivity about Dr Kelly’s death, which had occurred more than eleven years previously. Its clear inference was that Dr Kelly’s grave was being monitored, perhaps by an arm of the State.

  Mr Jonas – whom I did not know – sent me a copy of it and, being aware of my interest in the Kelly case, later rang me to explain the background to it. He said he had never met or spoken to Dr Kelly or his family; he had simply believed for many years that for reasons of public interest there should be a full coroner’s inquest into Dr Kelly’s death to establish how, where and when he had died – something which successive governments have refused to allow.

  To that end he had set up a group, Justice For Kelly, and on behalf of its members had written to the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, asking her to consider ordering an inquest. Mrs May had passed Mr Jonas’s letter on to the Ministry of Justice. Its representative, Barrie Thurlow, had replied to Mr Jonas because it was felt that the matter in question fell under his department’s remit.

  In his original letter to the Home Secretary, Mr Jonas had mentioned his self-appointed role as the maintainer of Dr Kelly’s grave, which he believed had fallen into rather a sorry condition. In mid-2014 he had begun to weed it and to leave flowers on it occasionally. The result of Mr Jonas’s declaration to the Home Secretary about his grave-tending activities was the Ministry of Justice’s faintly menacing reply.

  The ministry’s letter also claimed that Dr Kelly’s family had complained of ‘interference’ at the grave. Mr Jonas told me that he had erected a placard near it to mark the eleventh anniversary of Dr Kelly’s death in July 2014. If Dr Kelly’s family found out about this particular incident at the time, presumably it had upset them, for understandable reasons: most people would not be happy for a relative’s resting place to become a site of protest. At about the same time, some flowers Mr Jonas had left on Dr Kelly’s grave were removed. In their place was an anonymous note requesting that Mr Jonas stop tending it. He replied to the individual who left him the note in what he now admits was an inappropriately flippant way – by leaving a bottle of champagne on the grave and telling whoever had left the note that he hoped they might ‘choke’ on it for having removed the flowers. In his defence, Mr Jonas made no attempt to conceal his identity: he left his name and telephone number on his note and was deliberately provocative, precisely because he wanted to speak to whomever had objected to his grave-tending. Needless to say, the champagne disappeared, but nobody ever rang him.

  And so Mr Jonas continued at intervals to look after the grave as an act of, in his words, ‘civic duty’ – even though officers from Thames Valley Police have made their presence felt in his life periodically, once calling on him at home unannounced late at night and also pulling him over to check his van when he was driving in Oxfordshire.

  Regardless of Mr Jonas’s actions, it seemed odd that the Ministry of Justice should have involved itself in what was little more than a local squabble. It also seemed surprising that Dr Kelly’s grave was in a bad way. Having seen it several years earlier, in 2010, I know that it appeared rather neglected at that time. Mourning being an entirely private matter, Dr Kelly’s family may have stopped visiting the grave, if indeed they were ever in the habit of doing so. But why would an official from the Ministry of Justice go to the trouble of, effectively, intimidating Mr Jonas by letter, especially when he had been so open about his activities?

  When I read the letter, in one sense I was greatly surprised. Is it really the job of a government department to scare off a member of the public and talk about Dr Kelly’s grave being monitored without explaining why this was necessary? And yet at the same time it came as no surprise at all. In sending the letter, another barbed-wire fence had effectively been erected around the topic of the Dr Kelly affair in order to keep the public away.

  This had plenty of precedents. Minimizing the risk of anybody scrutinizing anything to do with Dr Kelly seems to have been a preoccupation of the State ever since he left his house on 17 July 2003 and was never seen alive again.

  Since 2003, contradictions and peculiarities connected to Dr Kelly’s death have emerged at every other turn, pointing to the idea that for some reason this hugely significant – and tragic – event was never investigated exhaustively, and certain details about it were simply withheld from the public.

  In January 2010 I learned that, shortly after Dr Kelly’s death six and a half years earlier, Lord Hutton, the Law Lord who had chaired the public inquiry into Dr Kelly’s death, had secretly recommended that all medical and scientific records relating to him, plus photographs of his body, should be classified for seventy years. Hutton also advised the classification for thirty years of witness statements provided to his inquiry which were not disclosed at the time of his hearings.

  It is highly unusual that these records should have been locked up by the State for so long, but somehow even more suspicious that the embargo had itself been carried out without anyone knowing. The burial of this key information, never aired in public, had itself been buried. It is thanks only to an accidental revelation by a local government official that anybody knows about it. That fact made me reflect on what else about Dr Kelly’s death the public might be unaware of since it occurred. Plenty of new material has surfaced.

  Thanks to Freedom of Information responses provided by Thames Valley Police to various people over a prolonged period of time, it is known that there were no fingerprints on the knife he allegedly used to kill himself or on some of the items found beside his body: a water bottle; some empty pill packets; a watch; a pair of glasses and a mobile phone. And yet when his body was discovered he wore no gloves. This lack of prints was never even mentioned at the Hutton Inquiry. Then there is the startling matter of the apparent theft of Dr Kelly’s dental records from his dentist’s surgery in Abingdon. Who took the records; when did they do so; why did they want them; and why did a senior police officer give inaccurate details about this to the Hutton Inquiry?

  Among other urgent questions that remain unaddressed are why a factually contentious death certificate for Dr Kelly has been produced; why incomplete evidence concerning his whereabouts during the last week of his life was given to the Hutton Inquiry; why certain key witnesses were not called to give evidence to the Hutton Inquiry; and why a police search helicopter with thermal imagining equipment which flew over the wood where his body was found did not detect his body – despite the fact that his body temperature was warm enough at the time to register on the helicopter’s search system.

  It is clear that the Hutton Inquiry was an inadequate substitute for a coroner’s inquest into Dr Kelly’s death. It raised more questions than it answered. This book sets out to examine those questions, which have never been dealt with satisfactorily.

  PART 1

  LIFE AND DEATH

  THE £4.15 SCOOP

  At teatime on 22 May 2003, a quietly spoken government scientist with virtually no public profile walked into the Charing Cross Hotel in central London for a meeting that would
lead to his death exactly eight weeks later. His name was Dr David Kelly and his rendezvous was with Andrew Gilligan, the defence correspondent of BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

  Gilligan was regarded as a faintly unorthodox journalist not afraid to ask awkward questions of those in power. He was also a bit of a loner, known for keeping strange hours, who was rarely seen in his office at BBC Television Centre in west London. He had read History at Cambridge and his reporting skills were sufficiently highly prized for him to have been poached by the BBC from The Sunday Telegraph a few years earlier. Although only thirty-four, he looked older thanks to being prematurely bald.

  Gilligan and Dr Kelly had known each other since 2001. They had met twice previously, but they were not close. Their third – and what turned out to be final – encounter was initiated by Gilligan and was intended as nothing more than a routine chat between a journalist and his contact, on this occasion about Iraq. American and British forces had invaded the country two months earlier and by that stage occupied much of it.

  Dr Kelly had risen from relatively humble origins in Wales, where he was born in 1944, and was brought up by his mother and grandmother after his parents divorced to become one of the world’s pre-eminent experts in the field of chemical and biological weapons. This meant he had spent long periods during the previous decade working for UNSCOM – the United Nations Special Commission – as a weapons inspector in Iraq. He had visited the country thirty-seven times.

  His career route to this dangerous world began in 1973, when, aged twenty-nine, he became a senior scientific officer at the Unit of Invertebrate Virology at the National Environment Research Establishment. From 1984 he worked at Porton Down, the secretive Ministry of Defence chemical research unit near Salisbury, where he led experiments in how to defend troops in battle against biological warfare. In 1989 he became a technical expert in assessing germ warfare data coming out of the Soviet Union. From the early 1990s he had taken part in foreign weapons inspection programmes, working for both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, as well as briefing MI6. He had been a senior adviser to the United Nations Special Commission since 1995 and is also believed to have worked undercover for the intelligence services.