Thursday, 4 November 2010

A blog I would highly recommend concerning Dr Kelly

 I wrote my third post on this blog (which you can read here) on 28 September.  In it I highlighted a couple of very useful sources of information regarding Dr Kelly's death and if they hadn't existed I doubt that my blog would have happened.  Just to recap then: I mentioned Norman Baker's book "The Strange Death of David Kelly" - even though Norman was very opposed to the Iraq war of 2003 and couldn't be described as Tony Blair's most fervent fan he attempted, and I think largely succeeded, in writing a balanced record of the events around Dr Kelly's death.  With a useful and comprehensive index it's never far away when this blog is being updated.

The other inspirational reading resource was this blog written by Rowena Thursby.  Although suffering considerable health problems Rowena was determined to shine a light on the doubts and inconsistencies that surrounded the official version of events relating to David Kelly's death. The Kelly Investigation group was formed  in which other people with grave doubts about the official line could share their concerns.  The group included doctors, names subsequently becoming more familiar in some of the letters to the Press.

There are, or have been, other blogs on the internet relating to Dr Kelly apart from many individual articles.  One frustration with these is that so many of them are just vehicles for their owners to voice their ill considered and poorly researched thoughts on the David Kelly business.  But that is the internet for you I suppose.  I felt desperate to record my own ideas and try, if possible, to create a blog that was unbiased and that was as accurate to fact as I could make it.

I've recently discovered another blogger that is taking the Sherlock Holmes approach.  He is Dr Andrew Watt and this his blog.  Andrew is taking a very keen interest in the detail surrounding Dr Kelly's death.  He is ferociously forensic in his analysis and earlier today posted an article that very clearly points out a significant difference between what the forensic pathologist Dr Hunt wrote in his report of the 25th July 2003 and said at the Hutton Inquiry less than two months later on the 16th September.

I had thought about doing a separate post to summarise what Andrew wrote but it is a brilliantly incisive piece and needs to be read as a whole.  It is here.   

1 comment:

  1. Brian,

    Thanks for the kind words.

    If your readers would like a direct link to my post about Dr. Nicholas Hunt and the mysterious "pool of blood" the direct link is this:

    I've also just posted a new post about Operation Mason, triggered by your post here:

    The Operation Mason post on my blog is here: