In the letter they claim that the cause of Dr Kelly’s death, suicide by a self-inflicted wound to the left wrist, which the Hutton Inquiry identified, is ‘extremely unlikely’. This will add pressure on Dominic Grieve, the attorney general and Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, for another public inquiry. Pressure may also come from transport minister Norman Baker, who has written a book concluding that Dr Kelly’s life was ‘deliberately taken by others’. We have a serving minister who believes a British government scientist was assassinated as part of a deliberate plot, which was then hushed up.
Dr Kelly’s suicide, a terrible tragedy, is fast-becoming the conspiracy nuts’ cause celebre. They claim Hutton was a whitewash, that Kelly’s right arm was injured so that he couldn’t have cut his own left wrist, that shadowy figures were seen before he went missing, that he predicted his own death with the words ‘I will probably be found dead in the woods’, that ‘there wasn’t enough blood’, that you can’t die from severing your own ulnar artery.
There are different kinds of conspiracy theory: ones that events were faked, such as the moon landings or that ‘official versions’ of events are false, such as the Kennedy murder or the death of Diana. There are those that believe in meta-conspiracies: that the Jews secretly run the world through their grip on business, finance and the media; that freemasons are secretly in charge; that secret societies from the Bilderberg group, or Opus Dei subvert democracy. I remember seeing some private polling suggesting that a sizeable chunk of Britain’s Muslims believe that 9/11 was a plot by the US and Israeli secret services, not terrorists. There are plenty of people who believe that no Jews were killed in the Twin Towers, having been warned to stay at home. There’s a whole industry of people who believe 9/11 was a set-up to provoke a war in the middle east. Even within the Labour party, there are those that suggest Hugh Gaitskell was murdered by the KGB to make way for their agent Harold Wilson. These conspiracy theories are anchored in the counter-culture of the 1960s, and in a mindset that nothing is as it seems, that shadowy forces direct the shape of our society, and that only the enlightened few can see the ‘truth’. It borders on paranoia, with a view that ‘they’ will stop at nothing to keep the truth hidden.
The ideal antidote to all this nonsense is David Aaronovitch’s newish book Voodoo Histories, which formed part of my holiday reading this summer. From the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, through to Norman Baker’s belief in the assassination of Dr Kelly, he effectively debunks the myths and lies which surround some of the great events of the past century. The sad truth is that people being driven at high speed without seatbelts stand a high chance of crashing and dying; that 9/11 was caused by the terrorists who flew the planes, not the CIA, and that a British government scientist was put under such intolerable pressure that he took his own life, and that there were no Iraqi assassins hiding in the bushes.
Part of me thinks that Grieve and Clarke should acquiesce to demands for a new inquiry, in order to prove the conspiracy nuts wrong. But the nature of conspiracy nuts is that they can explain away any new information which disproves their theory as being part of the conspiracy. A future inquiry which proved that David Kelly deliberately died of self-inflicted wounds would not assuage the doubters; it would merely change the terms of their doubt. It would add fuel to the conspiracists, like Norman Baker, and possibly provoke a new edition of his book. That should be reason enough for us to oppose a new inquiry, and disappoint the people who think you can fake a moon landing, kill a president or a princess, or bring down two skyscrapers without anyone finding out.
Oh dear. An interesting short piece touching superficially on the broad subject of ‘conspiracy theories’. However, with the death of Dr Kelly as its hook, I think that your broadbrush dismissal of the ‘medical experts’ calling for the conclusion of his inquest (it was never concluded) is quite shameful. Is it not healthy to question official verdicts, particularly where the more complete picture throws up interesting questions ? Any thinking person knows there are mixed motives in any ‘official’ position.
“Nine experts including Michael Powers, a QC and former coroner, and Julian Blon, a professor of intensive care medicine, said in a letter to the Times that the official cause of death – haemorrhage from the severed artery – was “extremely unlikely”. I don’t know the full story, but I’m sure more will come out in the years ahead……
@Paul Jones
The fact that you think that there is a full story to come out is 24 carat proof that you are a conspiracy theorist.
And your not? the sad fact if you lock up documents for 70 years people will think something is wrong, if Labour got nothing to hide then open up the secret files, do I think aliens killed him, nope, do I think Tony the Killer blair killed him nope, do I think he ended it himself yes, but how pressure was he under from New Liebour.
The sad fact once you lock up papers for 70 years it’s open to all types of accusations.
Re 9/11: NIST admitted that the 3rd building to collapse on 9/11, not hit by a plane, came down in free fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds.
Can you explain?
A rather disappointing article wich attempts to marginalise the genuine questions people within the party and in the general public have about the tragic death of Dr Kelly. There should have been an inquest FULL STOP. If that had happened many questions may have been answered. To cast away all the doubts people have in their minds about official government minds as symtoms of being a conspiracy nut is insulting and has the psychological impact making people not question anything. THAT is a symptom of totalitarianism if you want me to go to the extreme end of the logical conclusion of my argument. The use of the example of conspiracy theories about Jews is also at worst disgraceful or at best shows a complete lack of understanding of the undercurrent of such theories because it fails to recognise the different motivations of those who esposue those theories. My point here is that questions about Dr Kelly are inspired by a lack of information which leads people to attempt to fill in the gaps whereas conspiracy theories about Jews are inspired by anti-semitism.
sorry 4th line should read “official goverment lines”
No Emina, just as conpiracy theories about the Jews are inspired by anti-semitism so questions about Dr Kelly are inspired by anti-Blairism, not lack of information,
Yes Stan that may well be the case however these two “anti’s” are not comparable. One stems from anger at a percieved or genuine betrayal of Labour values by a strand of the party who came to dominate the Parliamentary Labour Party which Blair came to represent, but was by no means the only culprit – people who hold differing views to Blairism are not nutters. The other “anti” stems from an irrational hatred of a people. Sorry i stand by my point in saying that they NOT comparable.
The letter that has received all the coverage was not, of course, written by forensic scientists. Interestingly on Monday the Guardian did interview four leading forensic scientists, who felt that the explanation accepted by the Hutton Inquiry was perfectly reasonable. For some reason, this did not get the same coverage as the previous letter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/16/david-kelly-inquest-hutton-inquiry
Of course the conspiracy theory that 19 Muslims, mostly from Saudi Arabia, lead by Osama Bin Laden managed to defeat the entire US air defense apparatus for over two hours using … box-cutters is perfectly acceptable (I can just imagine a bunch of those former Russian air-force generals choking on their vodka; “Blast!! Why didn’t we think of that!!!!!”).
It seems that theory is acceptable because the government told us it was true. The same government(s) that assured us that we had to go over to Iraq because of all the WMD’s Saddam was building to attack us.
If Dr. Kellys death is such a clear case clear evidence should be available and not locked up for 70 years.
If 9/11 if such a clear case then clear evidence for it should be available. Have you ever seen evidence? Where? And why do the chair and vice-chair of the official 9/11 commission feel they were “set up to fail?” (and being supported in that view by the families of the victims).
Read up on Tonkin gulf, Nurse Nayirah and the Downingstreet memo if you need some perspective of the lengths governments will go to to start wars their populations don’t want.