Dr. Stephen Frost
Global Research
Nov 7, 2010
Global Research Editor’s Note
Dr. Stephen Frost contacted Global Research and informed
us regarding The British media’s coverup pertaining to the
details of Dr. David Kelly’s death.
We are publishing below the letter which the Sunday
Telegraph refused to publish. This letter was written in
response to an article by Andrew Gilligan.
Who is Andrew Gilligan, the Sunday Telegraph journalist who
states that “the case is closed” and that “the details of Dr
David Kelly’s death, made public last week, should provide a
final answer to the conspiracy theorists”.
Is Andrew Gilligan in a conflict of interest? He is
reporting on a case in which he was personally implicated.
It was Gilligan’s 2003 report on the BBC’s Radio 4 Today
programme which triggered the David Kelly affair.
In this report Gilligan quotes
“a source” “who believes
Downing Street wanted the September intelligence dossier ’sexed
up’” to provide a justification for waging war on Iraq. That
“source” was Dr. David Kelly, as confirmed by Kelly himself in a
written note to his manager Bryan Wells, admitting he met Andrew
Gilligan on 22 May 2003.
A Ministry of Defence
statement subsequently refered to Kelly as “an unnamed
official”, who met Andrew Gilligan.
“On 9 July
2003 Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, writes to Gavyn
Davies, then BBC chairman, asking him to confirm whether
Kelly is the ’source’. The BBC refuses. MoD confirms to
journalists that Kelly is the official involved.
On 17 July at 3pm,
Kelly leaves home, telling his wife he is going for a walk.
When he fails to return home by 11.45pm, his family contacts
the police. He is found dead in the woods near his home the
following morning. 20 July The BBC issues a statement after
talking to Kelly’s family, naming him as the source of
Gilligan’s report.” ( Will Lee, The Guardian, 2004).
Michel Chossudovsky, November 5, 2010
When the Hutton report was published, the government of
Tony Blair was exonerated, while the BBC was heavily
criticised, implying the involvement of Andrew Gilligan, the
author of the October 24, 2010 article in Annex Part I below
entitled:
David Kelly: case closed.
A letter (see below) was submitted to the Sunday
Telegraph in response to Andrew Gilligan’s article re Dr David
Kelly published on 24 October 2010 in the same newspaper (see
ANNEX 1). After much prompting and discussion, the Sunday
Telegraph finally agreed to publish a decimated version of our
letter (see ANNEX 2). This in our view constitutes refusal or
neglect to publish a reasonable and accurate response to Andrew
Gilligan’s article. The right of reply, enshrined in editorial
guidelines, has been denied to us.
Dr. Stephen Frost, November 5, 2010
Dear Sir,
Andrew Gilligan’s article of 24 October has as its headline
“David Kelly inquest: Case closed” followed by “The details of
Dr David Kelly’s death, made public last week, should provide a
final answer to the conspiracy theorists, says Andrew Gilligan”
The truth is that the case is far from closed, not least
perhaps because no inquest has taken place. The continued
refusal or neglect to hold an inquest into this important death,
which is required by the laws of this country and of Europe,
constitutes a blatant subversion of due process of the law.
In January of this year the well known London lawyers Leigh
Day & Co., representing five doctors, formally requested that
the Ministry of Justice allow the doctors and lawyers sight of
all the medical and scientific documents/evidence relating to Dr
David Kelly’s death which had been secretly classified (at some
time unknown in 2004/2005) for 70 years following the
publication of the Hutton Report. Despite repeated questions,
both before and after the General Election, the Ministry of
Justice has been unable to tell us the exact date on which the
documents were classified, nor indeed to enlighten us as to the
legal basis for classifying the documents, nor for continuing to
keep them secret. It is strongly suspected that no such legal
basis exists.
On 22 October 2010 our lawyers finally received a reply from
Ken Clarke, Secretary of State for Justice, in which he sought
to justify not granting our request for sight of all the medical
and scientific documents relating to the death. He also
informed us that he intended to publish the post-mortem report
and the toxicology report on the Internet that very same day.
In a long rambling letter he attempted to justify his failure to
comply with our lawyers’ request by quoting exemptions to
disclosure allowed under the Freedom of Information Act. But,
we did not seek disclosure under the terms of that Act and that
had been made very clear by our lawyers in January of this
year. Further, it seemed extraordinary to us that medical in
confidence documents should be published on the Internet for all
to see, particularly the post mortem report and the toxicology
report, especially in view of the previous government’s and this
government’s oft claimed desire to avoid unnecessary upset to
the Kelly family.
It seems to us that this Government, by publishing these two
highly sensitive reports, hoped to draw a line under the whole
affair. However, it will do no such thing. Some weeks ago a 35
page legal document, known as the Memorial, was submitted to the
Attorney General Dominic Grieve by our lawyers outlining the
formal legal reasons why we think an inquest should take place.
Under Section 13 of the 1988 Coroners Act the Attorney General
can grant us permission to apply to the High Court (or he can
apply himself) for an inquest to be ordered. In order to do
this he has only to be satisfied that, were an inquest to take
place, the verdict MIGHT be different NOT that it WOULD be
different. Section 13 requires that any ONE of six reasons be
satisfied for the Attorney General to allow a formal application
to the High Court for an inquest into a death. The six reasons
are:
1) insufficiency of inquiry
2) irregularity of proceedings
3) rejection of evidence
4) new facts or evidence
5) fraud (in this context deception)
6) refusal or neglect by a coroner to hold an inquest which
ought to be held
We need to provide evidence to satisfy ONE reason but the
Memorial contains convincing evidence for ALL SIX reasons.
Notwithstanding the extremely strong case for an inquest
which has been submitted to the Attorney General in the form of
the Memorial, we intend as a matter of urgency to set up a fund
so that we are in a position to contest vigorously any refusal
by the Attorney General for us to proceed to the High Court by
judicially reviewing any such decision.
It is essential in any democracy that due process of law is
followed with the utmost rigour.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Stephen Frost
Full article here
