I have been asked whether I could cover the issues surrounding the lack of an inquest in respect of the tragic death of Dr David Kelly, including the withholding of the post-mortem files.
For some background, see here.
On one hand, this is tempting. A source-based and skeptical approach seems appropriate, especially in view of the range of conspiracy stories this death has attracted. It could also be helpful for someone to explain the applicable law.
On the other hand, do I really want to engage with those passionately committed to their conspiracy theories?
Are there serious questions outstanding about the death of Dr Kelly? Questions which require a calm, skeptical, reasoned, source-based, and legally-informed approach?
Or am I just one blogpost away from Nuttersville?
Please do let me know any thoughts.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comment(s):
In a list of 'things to do before I die', a detailed study of the events surrounding the death of Dr. Kelly would come somewhere near the bottom.
While in itself his death was a tragedy, his importance in the greater tragedy, the war in Iraq and the great 'weapons of mass destruction lie', lay in what he said and what he did before his death - and that is already well documented and, I believe, well understood.
Obviously, there might be some value in a general survey of the purpose behind and procedures and rules pertaining to inquests and of the various proposals made recently to modify these.
It might be interesting also to know whether the reason given for Lord Hutton's ruling that the Kelly post mortem files be sealed for 70 years bears closer scrutiny.
But, we cannot be sure that an examination of the post mortem files is going to 'prove' that there was anything sinister about the manner of his death even though it might fail to answer every possible question.
Would it not be better, rather than spending time now second-guessing the outcome, to wait a few months after which we might, so far as the post mortem files are concerned, have the advantage of additional qualified opinion?
I cannot think that, after so many reports, studies, books and broadcasts, there are many readers here who have not already formed their own opinions about the 'war in Iraq' and about the relatively minor part played by this former Government scientist.
Whatever 'conspiracy theories' there might be surrounding the death of Dr. David Kelly, the central conspiracy that in central to the recent conflict has already been exposed for what it is.
Whilst I'm sure I'd find your take on this very interesting; I think your time could be better spent. As with the McKinnon case passions are high and conspiracy theories abound. However unlike in that case I see no pressing need to review the surrounding law and actions of the state as the case doesn't (in my mind) raise wider public interest questions (eg extradition treaties, decisions of the CPS).
I think you're likely to attract much pain for little gain. Perhaps a detailed review on the reponsibilities of law firms and judges in libel abuse instead?
I think you should do it - if there's really a possibility of an inquest being opened, there needs to be some ongoing response to the conspiracists.
David Aaronovitch's critique of the Kelly conspiracists (and Norman "Mr Pooter" Baker in particular) in "Voodoo History" is worth a look.
Personally, I'd favour releasing the file simply to try to regularise the position around Kelly's death - there should have been a normal coroner's inquest, which could then have been followed by Hutton's broader inquiry if was necessary. Adopting a unique process not only gave fuel for the conspiracists, but also subsumed the personal tragedy for the Kelly family in the public spat between Alistair Campbell and the BBC.
As to holding an inquest now, I'm not sure what good can come of it. If it contradicts Hutton, the conspiracists say it's a victory; if it doesn't, they say it's a whitewash. Either way, the public purse is depleted and the Kelly family has to go through the experience again.
Jack, if you do get round to writing a death of Dr. Kelly post, I will fold and deliver to you a tinfoil helmet based on the classic 1979 "Alien mindrays are turning us into Democrats" pattern.
Its not because you will deserve the immediate use of it but rather because it will help you with the Batesian Mimicry necessary to exist in even the coastal waters of Kellyite Conspiracyism.
I'm not much given to conspiracy theories (especially knowing that having more variables than equations in a set of simultaneous equations gives you infinitely many solutions), so I'd be grateful for an explanation of just what there might be in post-mortem files that justifies keeping them secret. Whatever secrets need protecting, it's tough to think of any that involve the medical stuff, if Kelly did commit suicide. If I wanted to keep conspiracy theories about Kelly's death going, I couldn't come up with a better way of doing it than keeping the medical files secret.
Was that decision just dopey or is there a good reason. I'd be relieved to have the one niggling issue I have resolved.
I'd be interested to see your thoughts. The last non-conspiracy-theory angle I saw on this was a year or so ago when a group of doctors (trauma, vascular and pathology) were looking to challenge the decision to omit an inquest in his death. It was reported on the Remedy website.
I'm a confirmed sceptic of the "show me the numbers" persuasion, but I admit I am not happy about the suppression of the reports on Dr Kelly's death. A 70 year gag implies that there is something to reveal that would embarrass the present generation - or at least some of them. I think that the potential embarrassee is more likely to be in the late Government than in Dr Kelly's family. But what do the latter think? Would they welcome an open inquiry?
I am a hospital doctor who regularly needs to cut the radial artery in the wrist as part of planned therapeutic procedure. I perform this procedure 5-6 times per day, as do my colleagues.
None of us have ever seen anyone lose more than a small amount of blood from radial artery trauma, let alone bleed to death (as was the stated cause of death for Dr Kelly). Our personal experience is compatitble with all of the medical textbooks and current scientific literature.
The artery clamps down and spasms when it is cut - preventing further blood loss - which is presumably an evolutionary mechanism. Although the possibility of the occurance of fatal radial artery haemorrhage exists, its theoretical likelihood is very small.
Scientific knowledge would be advanced if the inquest notes here were in the public domain. The medical profession might change its practice and preconceptions about radial artery trauma with the information provided.
Put simply, one of the major functions of the inquest system is to advance the total sum of human knowledge. Until this information is in the public domain, it can't be critically appraised. These are the reasons why all skeptics should be drawing attention to this; the conspiracy theorists have nothing to do with it.
I'd suggest you ask the family, or their legal representatives, whether they're interested in seeing an inquest, or the documents released.
So far as the restriction on access to particular documents is concerned, this is relatively common following an inquiry. See ss. 19 & 20 of the Inquiries Act 2005 (which effectively codifies the law that applied to inquiries such as Hutton). Note that s.19(4)(b) allows restrictions to be imposed to avoid "any risk of harm or damage". In this case, if the family does not wish details of Dr Kelly's death to be made public (e.g., photos being plastered all over the papers), then it might well be justifiable to have a longer than normal restriction.
Bear in mind also that, if Dr Kelly had had a formal inquest, the coroner's records would almost certainly be closed for the same duration. See page 16 of the National Archive's "operation selection policy" relating to Coroner's records at the URL link below. That says that general practice is for members of the public to have access to coroners' files after 75 years. Only family members, police, doctors, lawyers and certain other groups tended to get access before.
That policy, of course, preceeded the FOI Act. It's open for these doctors to submit an FOI request if they really want the details Dr Kelly's death to be made public.
Post a Comment