The Iraq Inquiry was intended to ‘find the bodies’ in the murky world of the military build-up to the Iraq invasion. Yesterday it appeared that this included the only-just-cold body of David Kelly, the British weapons inspector who had let slip to Andrew Gilligan that the government’s claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction failed to stand up.

Lord Hutton, it has been revealed, barred the release of all medical records, including the results of the post mortem, for 70 years. This has been described as a ‘draconian’ move, carried out ‘in secret’ and has further stoked the fires of conspiracy.

The assumption is that what is being concealed must automatically be a matter of national importance, possibly the smoking gun which would lead Blair straight to a seat in the dock at the Hague, and thus the world and his blog clamours, demands, screeches, whines, that the information must be released.

This is to assume that David Kelly, sometime bit part player in the great misinformation saga of weapons of mass destruction, had no other life, no other role, no entitlement to privacy for the sake of his family that over shadowed his recent moments of fame as a national hero to those who wish to bury Blair.

Much has been made of David Kelly’s reported words that if Iraq were invaded he would probably ‘be found dead in the woods’, and the assumption is made that he was indicating that harm would befall him at – possibly Governmental – hands; that statement can just as easily be read as his intention to take his own life should his assurances to his Iraqi sources that there would ‘be no war’ if they co-operated, prove to be worthless.

An autopsy is the final invasion of privacy, the revelation of a lifetime’s personal secrets, from how much you drank and smoke, to the diseases you may have suffered from, the disabilities you had concealed, all concluding in your probable cause of death. It is only Dr Kelly’s probable cause of death that the great British public have an interest in.

It is said that a house sale is the most stressful time in ones life, I would add that having your husband recovering from a heart attack in one room, your aunt recovering from a stroke which had paralysed her and left her speechless in another, puts ’stressfull’ in another league. That my uncle had died a few days previously merely added to the quixotic mix, as I busied myself showing yet another prospective buyer round the house. The phone rang. It was the Coroner. Could he speak to my Aunt? Well, obviously not, could I help? Legally I was the only next of kin who could answer his question.

His question poleaxed me, it remains a conundrum to this day. My uncle’s testicles, were, I quote ‘not present on his body at the time of autopsy’, could I throw any light on this matter? Not being an incestuous sort of family, I had not a clue, not an inkling, that Uncle Dave, bless his socks, was any less than all present and accounted for. Nor should I have had, it was a secret which he and my aunt had kept to themselves for many years. Now, of course, I was free to ponder on their late marriage, the unfairness of the family rumours that had swirled round my aunt that she ‘was not the marrying kind’, their childless state, indeed, my aunt’s oft stated declaration that she ‘loathed chidlren’ – was it true?

My uncle’s autopsy records are available to anyone who can prove a reasonable reason to access them, they are in the semi-public domain. Would it be reasonable that they should be pored over by every blogger, every journalist in the kingdom, had a small part of his life been involved in the public domain, no matter how controversial? I think not.

Are we accusing Lord Hutton of gross corruption, of being aware that there is something in that autopsy that would prove beyond doubt that David Kelly was murdered? Are we accusing Mrs Kelly and the Kelly children of having stayed silent in order to support a corrupt war? I don’t hear Mrs Kelly clamouring for the release of this report. Either she has seen it, or she has no wish for it to be released.

The Coroner for Oxfordshire is of the opinion that the records were embargoed to ‘protect the children’. Is he also aware that the autopsy contained proof that Dr Kelly was murdered and is staying silent to protect Tony Blair? Or is he aware of something unrelated that we know nothing of, nor need to know?

We are demanding every last scrap of information, an invasion of privacy beyond death, in order to fulfil our assumption that ‘the truth’ is that David Kelly was murdered, and we are forgetting that his body may have harboured secrets that have nothing to do with us, and could be deeply hurtful and confusing to his children, and his wife.

It is possible that Lord Hutton was mindful that an autopsy reveals far more than the cause of death, and far from an ‘establishment cover-up’ he was actually pre-empting what he must have known would be a ghoulish dissection of every last scrap of information about a man who existed in a larger and more important sphere than just ‘Government Weapons Inspector’.

1
Letters From A Tory January 26, 2010 at 09:28

For the Hutton Inquiry to interfere in releasing post-mortem results, which is standard practice in any such case, shows that there was clearly something to hide.

The fact that a government-led inquiry even has the power to bury this information is disturbing enough.

2
Ed P January 26, 2010 at 09:58

But why is the report restricted for 70 years? Such a long time, to ensure “no living memory” is very unusual if it is just to protect the family from potentially embarrassing revelations. This whole affair stinks.

3
Guthrum January 26, 2010 at 10:02

As a History student I was always getting rejection slips for stuff covered by the thirty year rule, now in my dotage this stuff is coming out usually embarrassing and dirty little secrets of the Government of the day.

A seventy year prohibition is big time dirty secret, only surpassed by the one hundred year one to protect the Royal Family.

Why Hutton has chosen to do this know is beyond me, take your point on the personal stuff though.

4
Anna Raccoon January 26, 2010 at 10:07

LFAT
I don’t see any difference between the government ‘hiding’ this information, if it is personal, and say, giving a new identity to the Bulger boys, in fact I would far rather see Kelly’s family get the benefit of privacy than the Bulgers.
I just feel that mistrust of this government is so profound, that everyone is making the assumption that it can only be evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the government that Hutton would choose to hide.
Do you imagine that bloggers in particular would ‘leave it alone’ if there was some juicy revelation in the post mortem that had nothing to do with WMD?

5
The Slogger January 26, 2010 at 10:25

Anna
Over at http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/ , there is stuff which may throw more light on this.
Best

TS xx

6
Saul January 26, 2010 at 10:44

Lee Harvey Oswald, in the woods, with a rusty knife.

7
The Slogger January 26, 2010 at 11:09

Excellent, Saul….

But the doctors’ consortium casts enormous doubt on the Hutton verdict – and the 70-year gagging order is asking for conspiracy theories.
All I’m saying is, the footprints near to Kelly’s body were suspiciously large….
xx

8
Saul January 26, 2010 at 11:18

Coco the Clown to appear at Chilcot Inquiry?

( I know, Hain)

9
Vimes January 26, 2010 at 11:35

As we say in Weegieland, aye, right.

10
Clarinda January 26, 2010 at 11:46

I think the medics are also unhappy about the unusual way that the Hutton Inquiry hi-jacked the the normal and more usual route of a Coroners Inquiry over a suspicious death. I gather Hutton took it upon himself to confirm cause via his committee and the medics are therefore not only concerned about any side-stepping of medical specialist post-mortem pathology where the restricted and unusual data that was tentatively released gives rise to reasonable doubt over the cause of death in these particular circumstances. Their concerns are therefore twofold – normal medico-legal procedure was suspended and the post-mortem facts as published appear suspect. From all that I have read about the doctors unease over Dr Kelly it is not his health record of his day to day living – but the manner of his death that concerns them.

11
Sabot January 26, 2010 at 15:17

I would like to know if there is any possibility of David Kelly having been murdered. Some of these people aren’t fit to run a teddybear’s picnic.

The whole Iraq thing is a disgrace. I chose not to pass judgement at the time, but then I didn’t know that we were being lied to.

And even if David Kelly did commit suicide, why was he exposed as a liar when he was clearly telling the truth. This in itself is sick.

12
BenS January 26, 2010 at 17:15

Well nobody I know has gotten this special treatment.

13
Anna Raccoon January 26, 2010 at 17:19

BenS
How many people do you know who have died whilst in the eye of a world wide media storm?

14
BenS January 26, 2010 at 18:03

Nobody, but you yourself said it would not be fair for your uncle’s records to be pored over by the public. Did you and your family get the 70 year option? Or didn’t your uncle get the requisite amount of headlines?

As far as I know, if a death is suspicious the autopsy is compulsory and the results can be heard by anyone at a coroner’s hearing. Whether or not you think the state should be involved in that is another matter, but you cannot have one rule for one and another for someone else merely because they have media attention. ‘You’re sufficiently well-known for your records to be protected in a way a normal citizen’s records are not,’ is not a policy I particularly agree with.

I can’t see this 70 year bar as anything but a cover up; given the govt’s track record, I highly doubt it was done for the sake of Kelly’s family (and yet-to-be-born family, apparently). There are other reasons. Perhaps not nefarious, but certainly not compassionate.

15
Anna Raccoon January 26, 2010 at 18:41

BenS,
That is just the point. My family was unknown and there wasn’t a barrage of hungry journalists waiting for a glimpse of the autopsy report. Daivd Kelly was a special case, Hutton would have known that the world and his blog would be going over every last full stop in that report.
There is quite often one rule ofr one, and one for another – eg – the example I gave of the anonymity for the Bulger boys, and indeed Mary Bell – whether you agree with that, and I don’t personally, it is a fact of life that such privacy is often extended when people are particulary newsworthy.

16
BenS January 26, 2010 at 18:48

You could easily argue that Kelly is a special case the other way, i.e. his death was particularly dodgy and highly relevant, and the govt chose instead to keep details hidden for 70 years. You are of course correct that it is a fact of life that certain individuals’, rightly or wrongly, records are kept secret for longer than others, but, again, I can’t agree with the conclusion you’ve reached… no government prizes its citizens’ privacy in death for 70 years.

17
Joe Public January 26, 2010 at 19:47

BenS 18:48

“You could easily argue that Kelly(’s death) is a special case the other way, ….”

Convenient?

18
Fabian the Fabulous January 26, 2010 at 20:26

In any suspicious death – even mildly suspicious – an inquest is routine… an inquest into the circumstances of that death, and nothing else.
Ruling that an inquiry into the BBC would also serve the purpose of an inquest seems bizarre and, more importantly, presupposes that the BBC and its reporting were central to Dr Kelly’s death.

19
Jon Gregory January 27, 2010 at 13:58

Under what legislation and on what grounds did Hutton have the power to conceal this information for 70 years. Can anyone answer this? Plus why have none of the MSM journalists pursued what appears to be a cover up?

20
Gloria Smudd January 27, 2010 at 20:45

Today I have been mostly glued to the Chilcott Inquiry. Riveting stuff.

21
Saul January 27, 2010 at 20:55

Did some work experience in a shipyard today, also riveting stuff.

22
Gloria Smudd January 27, 2010 at 21:06

Any more of that and this thread’ll go to pot, young Saul.

23
Thaddeus J. Wilson January 27, 2010 at 22:15

We’ll just have to solder on, Gloria. Otherwise all weld will break loose!

24
John Leon January 27, 2010 at 22:24

Hey Saul, they stopped riveting ships together 90 years ago, I’d find a more modern one that uses up to date technology if you want to gain any useful experience.

25
Gloria Smudd January 28, 2010 at 09:24

Nice one, Thadd, and weld spotted! I clearly can’t hold a torch to you!