You are on page 1of 51

Afterword: The fuss about Kelly? (Part two).

Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position fails your ego goes with it. Colin Powell *** Too general that, the work before, finally we think. For or it see s we ha!en"t really got in this ti e ha!e we, ha!en#t really got !ery near any "reasoning" as to why any of us ight walk away fro all that sort of thing? And that besides the uni$ueness of that ost ons situation that %r Kelly had then, 'just found myself to be in...' And it was in that way that %r Kelly had defended hi self briefly ba&k then as well ' ( at that first and &ru&ial, for hi )o (and any for the sui&ide s&enario already agree with this), )o ittee hearing on '* +uly, ,--.. And a

ost reasonable defen&e we think that an didn"t, did he,

&ould ha!e been e!en now as well. And one therefore he &ould ha!e /ust stu&k to fore!er? 0ery workable if he"d only ke1t that to the fore. 2ut our understanding at all finally, any e$uation left e!en, if we &an? And now it see s that we &ould ha!e gone further by way of the e!iden&e of Professor 3awton, and by looking at what under1inned that as well. To wit not /ust what that in large 1art see ed based on, on dis&ussions with the Kelly fa ily then (an i 1ression we had gained while working our way trades(1erson like through this work, before). And, it see s now, we &ould ha!e taken i ore note of what %r Kelly"s fa ily said ediately afterwards as well. 4hile the senti ents e51ressed by both 3awton (in so ething else got in, and so we need to go further, it see s, if we are to ha!e any

hindsight, below), and %r Kelly"s fa ily (below) are si ilar6 they are not so si ilar that there are not so e differen&es left there for us to look at finally as well. The Kelly fa ilies e 1hasis, following this, a1ologised, ight be seen to be a bit light now, and an, so e

therefore a bit unfair, 1erha1s, on another 1arty now, who though he has sin&e ight, really, ba&k then, ha!e /ust set so ething off for our dreadful thought held ba&k. 4ith 3awton (his !iew in hindsight, slightly 7 a little ti e after anyway), there is final ste1s that ore left for us to think on with. 8t is not /ust what &onstituted all this final ste1 (in his o1inion), that is useful here, rather it is what &onstitutes su&h ight be useful now instead, should we be able to untangle fro this. This we &an inter1ret, think on with as well, should we find reason to? And fitting reason ight be then, that as there ight be further dis&o!ery, it ay yet

be 1ro1itious that an in$uest has not been held yet. That as history, by its !ery nature, &an"t be de&i1hered i ediately, it takes so e ti e, and then so e. 9or should the of in$uiry, not stand u1 in its own good ti e as well legal syste , another syste

' :ral e!iden&e, that &o ittee, $uestion;answer, '*< htt1:;;www.1ubli&ations.1arlia;1a;& ,--,-.;& sele&t;& faff;u&'-,*(i;u&'-,*-,.ht .

then..= *** 2a&king u1 further to begin with again here, it was the fashion on&e to &o e u1 with grand theories that ight fit all and so began the ore odern way of looking at oursel!es as well. 9ot that the last word &an e!er be had, as indeed we &an"t here. On the Origin of Species..., by )harles %arwin ('>*<), for instan&e, was one, and !ery influential sin&e as well. :ut of this 1eriod also &a e the us here is that of the Fren&h an, %a!id ? ile %urkhei odern dis&i1line of ( the father, he is &onsidered, so&iology (the study of the stru&ture and dyna i&s of so&iety). The work that interests of so&iology, his work entitled @ui&ide ('><A), establishing that. )onsidered his se inal onogra1h, a &lassi&al de onstration of so&iologi&al 1osited that for ea&h ethod,

%urkhei "s work, Suicide, &o 1ared sui&ide rates a ongst Protestant and )atholi& 1o1ulations. The rate of sui&ide being different %urkhei ight that be? 3ow to e51lain this? %urkhei de&ided that what attered ost here, in order to &lassify this a&t, would be 1o1ulation this rate &ould be said to be 1e&uliar to that ty1e of so&iety then. 4hy

that the 1erson would know that death would be an out&o e of an a&t. There &ould be a differen&e though, between a 1erson taking an e5tre e risk knowing this &ould well o&&ur in loss of life, and a 1erson negle&ting, say, their health. That this was so didn"t trouble %urkhei as u&h as this should ha!e 1erha1s, for this at least showed that there was a range of 1ossibilities, ergo 1robabilities?


ight, %urkhei

begins with, be "e5tra(so&ial &auses" at 1lay here ( an &ountry to &ountry? ight be a fa&tor also? This didn"t, doesn"t,

in&lination towards sui&ide, nor al or 1athologi&al, !arying fro The nature of any 1hysi&al en!iron ent see to be so.

8n all so&ieties the 1er(annu

rate of &ertain diseases, like the sui&ide rate, is one so&iety to another. 4ithout

generally stable but is; was 1er&e1tibly !ariable fro sui&ides. This &ould bring you to a full sto1. %urkhei

this there &ould be no study. 8nsanity, &lassified as a disease, &ould also a&&ount for

atta&ked that idea by ta&kling that hy1othesis in its two

ost &o


for s then ( the !iew that sui&ide itself was a s1e&ial for

of insanity6 the !iew that

sui&ide was si 1ly an effe&t of !arious ty1es of insanity. The first suggestion %urkhei

de&ided &ould only be so if an "insane" 1erson li ited all their a&tions towards /ust that a&t. That doesn"t ha11en. The se&ond he re/e&ted on the grounds that sui&ides &o ostly de!oid of deliberation and There are oti!e. That while itted by the insane are oti!e there.

any other sui&ides &an often be

identified as ha!ing been deliberate, ha!ing been deliberated on, so e any sui&ides, therefore, not &onne&ted with insanity.

2ut what about 1sy&ho1athi& &onditions whi&h fall short of insanity then 7 a ner!ous breakdown, so e out of &ontrol de1enden&y on al&ohol, (drugs now we su11ose), these fa&tors fre$uently asso&iated in a &o sui&ide? To that %urkhei al&oholis . %urkhei then turned his attention to the ore nor al 1sy&hologi&al &onditions on sense ight anner with

was able to distinguish by geogra1hi&al &o 1arison that

sui&ide rate"s bore no definite relation to that of the rate of ner!ous breakdown or

inherent in ra&e, and those to do with heredity. The !iew that sui&ide is the &onse$uen&e of tenden&ies inherent in so&ial ty1es, if you like, was under ined though by the enor ous !ariations in so&ial sui&ide rates obser!ed within the sa e ty1e 7 that suggesting that different le!els of &i!iliBation were also there. The argu ent that sui&ide 1redis1osition to &o ight be hereditary was a ore ore diffi&ult. That, as a &ause, ore de&isi!e

had first to be distinguished fro

oderate !iew that a 1erson &ould inherit a

it sui&ide. That &ould be &o 1ared to any 1ro1ensity in a fa ily e&hanis within. The idea ight be there

towards a ner!ous breakdown as well though ( but those do not a11ear without reason, &ause, by so e autono ous the board. 4hat about the weather? The &on/un&tion of 1redis1ositions to sui&ide with &li ate, %urkhei de&ided, was of no a&&ount. 4hile the geogra1hi&al distribution of sui&ides in Curo1e !aried a&&ording to latitude and thus roughly a&&ording to &li ate as well, these !ariations were still better e51lained by so&ial &auses. 8n a&tual fa&t the sui&ide rate was higher in s1ring and su Doing further with that %urkhei that 1erha1s there was a er than in fall and winter anyway. also e5a ined a notion of two 8talian statisti&ians 7 be&ause of fa ily history, a ty1e of &ontagion then, but this was not a &ause a&ross

e&hani&al ty1e influen&e by heat on &erebral fun&tions

leading to e5tre e e5&itability and hen&e danger by the self to the self. Eostly though, sui&ide is 1re&eded by so e de1ression and begins to de&line in the hotter 1eriods also.

8n his in!estigations of sui&ides by insanity %urkhei

had had at his dis1osal


good des&ri1tions of indi!idual &ases, of a 1erson"s 1sy&hologi&al state, &o

ethod, et&. ent

:ther data, weather, &li ate and so on, as abo!e, was also a!ailable. For sui&ides itted by sane 1eo1le data was al ost &o 1letely una!ailable though 7 &o oti!ation 1resu ed then. This would not do. was generally by so e offi&ial, so e %urkhei didn"t belie!e that

oti!es were true &auses anyway. Feasons, so &alled, ight show us where;why an outside

ight indi&ate an indi!iduals weak 1oints, not 1art of that &urrent itself. To su arise so far, %urkhei

&urrent bearing an i 1ulse to self(destru&tion found its way in. 2ut those reasons were

argued that there was;is a s1e&ifi& tenden&y to sui&ide ake(u1 of a 1erson, nor by any ty1e of 1hysi&al ust then be a &olle&ti!e

that &an be e51lained neither by the

en!iron ent. 3e deri!ed this hint by way of eli ination 7 a ty1e of argu ent;style said to be &hara&teristi& of hi . Thus this tenden&y, in itself, 1heno enon. 4as there any one "single, indestru&tible" sui&idal tenden&y for all that 1re(e5ists? :b!iously, logi&ally not (logi&, its de1loy ent, also &hara&teristi& of %urkhei "s style) ( /ust as there were obser!able differen&es in different so&ieties, so there were different le!els of sui&ide obser!able also. There ight be three reasons for that, he finally de&ided, states, its hard to find the only ter raison d#etre"s 7 reasons

right word really, three o11osites of what we &o &an also slide to fit or to o!erla1. ***

to li!e. These he left good des&ri1tions of as well. These states, whi&h in&identally, we

And here, first, not &on!in&ed of anything in any of this so far, we &o sui&ide." And here first be&ause we think this

ight bring in his of "altruisti&

only last dis&ussed ty1e;&lass of sui&ide (his third for ) ( his for

ight illustrate this heading,

afore entioned, best, an e5a 1le of this ( this the belief, &on!i&tion, that self destru&tion was a 1ro1er &ourse of a&tion in so e &ir&u stan&es ( that as e5e 1lified by the +a1anese offi&er &lasses during the se&ond world war ( entioned abo!e, 1. ) and not /ust by the offi&er &lasses we their own good. *** )on!ersely, warti e, in the west anyway, generally re!erses %urkhei "s se&ond for , of "ano i& sui&ide." 8n warti e there is less sui&ide, there is to ore regulation, , that leading to ore self(regulation, we ore integration, that due ight su11ose... Eu&h, ight add either. This was, 1robably still is, a &urrent like that running in that so&iety, that ty1e. The indi!idual too integrated for

a&tually, of %urkhei "s work on sui&ide &an be seen this way: this idea of integration

!s disintegration, the

eta1hor, analogy, there by no a&&ident. 2alan&e !s being ake here, is that we &an be balan&ed fro

unbalan&ed 7 here, the 1oint we"d like to

without. The i age of a see(saw &ould be added here? *** For his &on&e1t of "egoisti&" sui&ide %urkhei is said , to ha!e returned to his a/or had 1osited

&on&e1tion of the duality of hu an nature as first ad!an&ed in his first so&iologi&al work, he !ivision of "abor in Society ('><.). 8n this %urkhei that an was double, biologi&al and so&ial, and that,

" an su1eri 1oses hi self u1on 1hysi&al an. @o&ial an ne&essarily 1resu11oses a so&iety whi&h he e51resses or ser!es. 8f this dissol!es, if we &an no longer feel it in e5isten&e and a&tion about and abo!e us. whate!er is so&ial in us is de1ri!ed of all ob/e&ti!e foundation... Thus we are bereft of reasons for e5isten&e: for the only life to whi&h we &ould &ling no longer &orres1onds to anything a&tual6 the only e5isten&e still based u1on reality no longer eets our needs... @o there is nothing ore for our efforts to lay hold of, and we feel the lose the sel!es in e 1tiness..."

And at the 3utton in$uiry Professor 3awkins, finally 1ut so ething like that so ething like this ( added that this 1ros1e&t of our another fa&tor here:
"3utton in$uiry: stage one... Prof 3awton: 4ell, 8 think that would ha!e filled hi with a 1rofound sense of ho1elessness6 and that, in a sense, his life"s work had been not wasted but that it had been totally under ined.".

an losing his sense of 1ur1ose as yet

*** @o far as this third ty1e of sui&ide is &on&erned, this "egoisti& ty1e," is &on&erned, there is, after that, a religious &o 1onent that we &an add now as well. 8t has been entioned, $uite a bit has been Protestant faith. %urkhei ha!e was interested in this, this religious &o 1onent, this under1inning this later ade of this, that %r Kelly was a 2aha"i and that the 2aha"i are against sui&ide ( as are, as always has been as well, the )atholi& and

work of his on sui&ide as well. And a&&ording to %urkhei , here, this &o 1onent &ould atters worse for %r Kelly.

A great belie!er in a11lying logi& after this 1ro&ess of eli ination that he fa!oured, %urkhei at first wondered at the ob!ious to e51lain a differen&e in the le!el of ost ob!ious differen&e being the &onfessional )atholi& and Protestant sui&ide 7 the

, 3ere, in this 1art, a1art fro out in1ut, we are relying on, "e5&er1ts fro the work of Fobert Alun +ones:#mile !urkheim$ An %ntroduction to &our 'ajor (orks." ('<>G), 11. >,(''H. 2e!erly 3ills. )A: @age Publi&ations. 3 Fefer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. '-*.

as1e&t of )atholi&is . 8t was the &ase then that where the Protestants were the nu erous the sui&ide rate was the highest. 8t was also the &ase that where the )atholi&s were the ost nu erous it was also


u&h lower? 2ut, he was able to add to

that, the likelihood of those of the +ewish faith turning towards sui&ide was lower still. Thus, we &ould add, this &onfessional as1e&t &ould ha!e been taken out then. For %urkhei , this logi& again, he de&ided, after that, that the only de&ided differen&e between between )atholi&is and Protestantis then was that the latter 1er itted ore free in$uiry than the for er. For the +ewish in$uirer he allowed that the +ew seeks to learn, but not in order to re1la&e traditional beliefs, but rather to 1rote&t hi self ( or should we say herself, really?. For the 2aha"i, we &an add here, this onus on free in$uiry is !ery u&h ore to the fore also ( not to 1rote&t though, rather it"s o!e towards their own truth by &ondu&ting their own followers are en&ouraged to inde1endent sear&h for this. 4hy, %urkhei wondered, would free in$uiry &ause ore unha11iness then? And here as

here, we think, he really has so ething insofar as we &ould a11ly this egois well. For refle&tion, he suggested, "de!elo1s only if its de!elo1 ent be&o es

i 1erati!e, that is, if &ertain ideas and instin&ti!e senti ents whi&h ha!e hitherto ade$uately guided &ondu&t are found to ha!e lost their effi&a&y." Fefle&tion thus, for %urkhei , then inter!enes to fill the ga1 that has a11eared 7 and refle&tion, as we all know, &an be as 1ainful, as it &an be hel1ful. 8ndeed, those two go hand in hand as well. 4e ha!en"t yet re arked on Professor 3awton"s other &o others to be added), this other &o a/or fa&tor for hi Ifor %r KellyJ at being e51osed to the ent (abo!e, and there

(also abo!e), this likely "...dis ay

edia. 4ell, we &ould also offer the ob!ious

ent here, that we &o1e better when our life re ains roughly in the sha1e we"re also suggests. would say, these are easily seen. They integrating its

used to. That way there is so e balan&e (again) ( a ne&essary 1arti&le of that being so e sense of &onstraint then, %urkhei

Cgoisti& and ano i& ty1e sui&ides, %urkhei within any so&iety to whi&h he or she e bers, a so&iety beha!iour as well, u1 to a 1oint. 3ere, %urkhei

are the res1e&ti!e &onse$uen&es of an indi!idual"s insuffi&ient or e5&essi!e integration ight belong. A1art fro ust also then &ontrol and regulate their beliefs, and so their

insisted there is a relationshi1 then, between a so&iety"s sui&ide rate on sense

and the way it 1erfor s any regulati!e fun&tion. 3is 1ri e e5a 1le, &urrent e!en, was that industrial and finan&ial &rises that did in&rease the sui&ide rates. )o would of &ourse, ost &o only attributed this to a de&line in e&ono i& well(being.

The sa e in&rease in the sui&ide rate, though, &ould be obser!ed as e&ono i& 1ros1erity in&reased. Thus, %urkhei e!en though it 1osited here, "e!ery disturban&e of e$uilibriu ," aterial &o fort, et&, et&, is still, stri&tly ight generate greater

s1eaking, "an i 1ulse to !oluntary death." 3ow again 7 an hy1othesis needed then? @o, %urkhei began: "9o li!ing being Iis eans6 for if its

likely to be ha11yJ unless its needs are suffi&iently 1ro1ortioned to its 1rodu&ti!ity, and a general weakening of the i 1ulse to li!e." %urkhei

needs sur1ass its &a1a&ity to satisfy the , the result &an only be fri&tion, 1ain, la&k of

&ontinues, this way. For an ani al, first, there is no &ontest 7 its needs and

eans are established by nature, its body, it &annot i agine other ends. 3u an needs are not so li ited though, they &an i agine other ends, the unattainable e!en. @till, though, su&h desires are, "by definition, insatiable, and insatiability is a sure sour&e of hu an unattainable,K %urkhei 1er1etual unha11iness." )hild(like stuff we know, but finally %urkhei "s 1oint was that for hu an beings to be able to resist any &urrent towards self destru&tion, this in our so&iety, they needed to feel so e for this for of &onstraint due to that as well, need to know their 1la&e in it all, if all that, fro you like, and that su&h 1rote&tion is sour&ed !ia so&iety also. Away fro together," as +ohn Lennon for one said, we do better. This 1oint is not well for instan&e, %urkhei ade 1erha1s? 8n s aller &o unities then, the agrarian ty1e isery: KTo 1ursue a goal whi&h is by definition &on&luded, would be, "to &onde n oneself to a state of

of 1rote&tion, &olle&ti!eness, and this other &urrent &an o!er&o e one. "All

had found, we &ould add, that the sui&ide rate was lower a&ross had found, we &ould add, was no great fa&tor, 1redi&tor, ay abound, but they won"t

the land. Po!erty, %urkhei ne&essarily take you down. %is(e$uilibriu

either, if generally found. Trials and tribulations

then, when a so&iety is e51erien&ing this, would ight set in, the

ean disru1tion to

nor al ser!i&es. 8n the &ase of an indi!idual, this would fun&tioning. Dreat fear 1la&e, though a ti e of re(assess ent, fi5ed 1oints are i ediately either... ***

ean to nor ati!e o!ing &onstantly, at ti es,

ind a see(saw, this &ould be a !ery dark

off balan&e, there is nothingness, that not a s1a&e where any light would shine

That being one side of the e$uation, the &urrent is there, how, in this &ase, &urrent ha!e found its ark then? 3ow was our

ight this

an 1arti&ularly !ulnerable? Are we

all? The Kelly fa ily ha!e ne!er thought their an was urdered. 8nstead they laid the ittee

bla e fir ly on the 1ro&eedings that %r Kelly was for&ed to attend, his first &o hearing in the wake of this affair, his a11earan&e before the Foreign Affairs @ele&t &o ittee (FA)), '* +uly then, this an indignity to hi ...

There, he, "a11eared to be under se!ere stress, whi&h was 1robably in&reased by the tele!ising of the 1ro&eedings. 3e s1oke with a !oi&e so soft that the air(&onditioning e$ui1 ent had to be turned off, e!en though it was one of the hottest days of the year." H

And at this

eeting he was 1ressed, and in none too kind a

anner, as to whether or

not he was &haff, a fall guy thrown down by the Labour go!ern ent not /ust to di!ert attention though, but, reading between the lines, he Dilligan) that being to "get Dilligan".* For Kelly, for a while there, he /ust res1onded that this was situation he /ust found hi self in, that due to his own honesty as well, he had written to his line alerted hi to the fa&t that he had had an unauthorised Dilligan had &o e out with his story. Two arti&les, 1ublished in later on in the elegraph, tend to lend su11ort to our assertion here ( that the Kelly fa ily was as &on&erned o!er how he was s1oken to at that &o ittee hearing as they were o!er anything else: anager and eeting with Dilligan before ight also ha!e been trying to assist the go!ern ent with Alistair )a 1bell"s a!owed intention then (a&&ording to

"%ad said interrogator EP was utter bastard: 2y 9eil Tweedie and @andra La!ille -, @e1 ,--. %a!id Kelly was so angered by his hu iliation before the Foreign Affairs &o ittee that he was o!ed to des&ribe one of its e bers as Kan utter bastardK. The referen&e was a11arently ai ed at Andrew Ea&kinlay, the Labour e ber of the &o ittee who a&&used the s&ientist of being Ka fall guyK and K&haffK, a de&oy used to throw the EPs off &ourse during their in!estigation into e!ents leading u1 to the in!asion of 8ra$. Mesterday Ise1t 'J, the 3utton 8n$uiry heard detailed e!iden&e fro %r Kelly"s fa ily about the s&ientist"s rea&tion to his $uestioning by the &o ittee on +uly '*, two days before his a11arent sui&ide. Fa&hel, his daughter, said: K3e was really !ery, !ery dee1ly trau atised by the fa&t that IitJ would be tele!ised. 8t was 1laying on his ind.K @he des&ribed how the strain on the s&ientist had been 1rolonged when one of his two a11earan&es s&heduled for that day, before the intelligen&e and se&urity &o ittee, was 1ost1oned for ,H hours. %es&ribing her father"s rea&tion to the $uestioning, she said he had been Kin&redulousK at the suggestion he was the 1rin&i1al sour&e for Andrew Dilligan, the 22) /ournalist whose re1ort had a&&used 9o '- of Kse5ing u1K the dossier on 8ra$. K3e felt he IDilliganJ had a&&u ulated this infor ation o!er ti e and &ould not understand how
H htt1:;;;wiki;%a!idNKellyN(wea1onsNe51ert).

* Fefer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. '-'.

he &ould

ake su&h for&ible &lai s about the &on!ersation they had had,K she said.

Following the hearing, Eiss Kelly asked her father how it had gone. @he said he had found it hard to re&all &on!ersations fro weeks earlier and was K!ery hard on hi selfK about his e ory failures. K%ad said it was !ery, !ery hard. Those were his words. 8 got the i 1ression the $uestions had been $uite tough. Ey own e51e&tation of a sele&t &o ittee was 1erha1s so ething $uite gentle anly and, in fa&t, what %ad had gone through was a real ordeal.K 3er father had referred to the $uestioning of one EP in 1arti&ular. K8 was sur1rised. 3e said !ery $uietly, with so e feeling, that this an was an utter bastard, not Ibe&ause ofJ the $uestions he asked but in the anner he asked the ...K"G

And Ers Kelly, sa e 1a1er, sa e day, added

u&h the sa e:

"...Ers Kelly Iat the 3utton in$uiryJ said her husband was Kballisti&K when he learned that his a11earan&e was to be be tele!ised. K3e felt it would be a kind of re1ri and in the 1ubli& do ain that was not going to be &o fortable for hi .K Ers Kelly des&ribed her husband as a shy, odest an, dedi&ated to his work, who belie!ed that he &ould ake a s all differen&e on the international stage. )orres1onden&e found after his death suggested that he was in line for a knighthood... 3er husband looked on his ordeal in being for&ed into the 1ubli& eye as worse than anything he had e51erien&ed as a Onited 9ations wea1ons ins1e&tor in 8ra$ in the '<<-s and as a 2ritish ins1e&tor in the for er @o!iet Onion. K8 had ne!er, in all his ti e in Fussia and in all his tri1s to 8ra$, where he had lots of horrors and 1eo1le 1ointing guns at hi , 8 had ne!er known hi to be so unha11y. 8t was tangible...K A

And, before we in$uiry, added,

o!e on fro

here, we

ight add here that Ers Kelly, to the 3utton

"that the day of her husband"s a11earan&e before the Foreign Affairs sele&t &o had IalsoJ &oin&ided with their .Gth wedding anni!ersary." >

ittee (FA))

A day, understandably then, et&hed in her

ind fore!er, a day like no other, yet (=).

*** There was, of &ourse, other !iews regarding that sele&t &o Kelly. :ne, here, was that this sele&t &o then, this syste ittee a11earan&e by %r e ber (Ea&kinlay), ittee, this sele&ted out

was entirely within his rights to 1ress %r Kelly and that no sha e at all was due hi of $uestioning in 1la&e for !ery good reason6 and, further ore, that ust ha!e %r Kelly took it as well as &ould be e51e&ted and, that being the &ase, there been so e other tor ent:
Mes, but, "%on"t bla e the EPs6 they 1erfor +uardian, Eonday ,' +uly: a &ru&ial role," said @i on 3oggart in the yth see s ittee. T0

'A ong the re!erberations round the terrible death of %r %a!id Kelly, one worrying to be s1reading ( that he was sent to his gra!e by the )o ons Foreign Affairs &o news IisJ routinely &allIingJ it a Kfier&eK or KharshK interrogation.

The bulletins endlessly re1eat e5tra&ts6 at the weekend one 1a1er &lai ed that the s&ene was worse than a fo5 torn a1art by hounds. The i 1ression &reated is that last Tuesday %r Kelly left his session with the sele&t &o ittee a broken an, a shell of hi self, already headed in his ind towards that :5fordshire &o1se.
G htt1:;;www.telegra1h.&;news;uknews;'HH-.,.;%ad(said(interrogator(EP(was(utter( l A htt1:;;www.telegra1h.&;news;uknews;'HH-.,';3e(felt(let(down(and( l

8 htt1:;;;1oliti&s;,--.;se1;-';da!'

4hat nonsense that is= 8 was there for the whole of the hour %r Kelly fa&ed the &o ittee, and as he 1ushed 1ast e at the end to lea!e the hot and airless roo he was s iling, re&ognising friends and &olleagues, &learly relie!ed the $uestioning was o!er, but far fro shattered. 8 a&&e1t that 1ro!es nothing, and that there ight ( indeed, there ust ( ha!e been other &auses of the tur oil in his ind. 2ut 8 &annot belie!e, and 8 do not belie!e, that it was the &o ittee"s $uestioning that 1ushed hi to the edge of his reason. And if 1eo1le &ontinue to &lai that it was, that is an a11alling slur on a 1erfe&tly de&ent grou1 of en and wo en, and in its way an insidious atta&k on the whole sele&t &o ittee syste , a syste whi&h now ore than e!er re$uires strengthening, not dis antling. Ti e and again we are shown on tele!ision the e1isode where Labour EP Andrew Ea&kinlay &alls %r Kelly K&haffK and suggests that he is Kthe fall guyK. 8t looks a&&usatory and angry, and Er Ea&kinlay, no doubt horrified by the i 1ression its &onstant re1etition ust ha!e &reated, has a1ologised to %r Kelly"s fa ily. 8t is a 1ity he had to do so. For one thing, it was &lear, if you heard the whole $uestion, that he was not atta&king %r Kelly, but the Einistry of %efen&e and the go!ern ent for using hi as a de&oy. Er Ea&kinlay is one of the best of the Labour rebels. 3e is e5&itable, and he ne!er knowingly understates a &ase. 8 thought he was a little rough when he e!oked Kthe high &ourt of 1arlia entK. 2ut it was /ust one sli1. Er Ea&kinlay is tough and bra!e and deter ined and was asking awkward $uestions of the go!ern ent when Tony 2lair still see ed unassailable. A free 1arlia ent needs en like hi , and it needs the to s1eak out ore, not sit with their li1s buttoned. As for the rest of the &o ittee ( well, they were 1robing, but as the session &ontinued they were e!idently o!ing round to su11ort of %r Kelly. Their ine!itable sus1i&ion that he was under1laying the a ount of infor ation he"d gi!en Andrew Dilligan had 1lainly begun to fade. They a&&e1ted that, while he had s1oken to Dilligan, he was not Kthe 1ri e sour&eK. 3e was told that he had beha!ed K!ery honourablyK. 8t is often 1ointed out that his !oi&e was so low as to be inaudible. This is true, but it was inaudible fro the start6 whate!er hushed hi &ould not ha!e been the &o ittee"s line of $uestioning. 8n su , he was ore or less e5onerated, in so far as anyone &an use that word in this urky setting. 3ad it been a trial, the /ury would ha!e $ui&kly rea&hed a Knot guiltyK !erdi&t, whate!er residual doubts they ight ha!e had. The sele&t &o ittee syste is not so e an&ient 1art of our &onstitutional heritage. 8t was set u1 by 9or an @t +ohn @te!as when he be&a e Eargaret That&her"s first leader of the house in '<A<. 8t was eant to a&t as a eans of &he&king on and s&rutinising inisters and de1art ents who would otherwise be able to hide behind the guaranteed a/ority 1ro!ided by the whi1s. 8t was also designed to 1ro!ide an alternati!e &areer for talented and hardworking EPs who would owe their loyalty to 1arlia ent and the ele&torate rather than to go!ern ent and 1arty. 9o wonder That&her hated it, and su&&essi!e go!ern ents ha!e s$uir ed angrily as they see their own ba&kben&hers sign u1 to harsh assaults on their &o 1eten&e. @o eti es it fails and 1rodu&es wishy(washy triu 1hantly. ilkso1 re1orts. At other ti es it su&&eeds

8 ha!e seen far, far rougher grillings than anything %r Kelly had to suffer: %erry 8r!ine on his wall1a1er, free asons in front of )hris Eullin"s ho e affairs &o ittee, rail bosses on the re&ei!ing end of Dwyneth %unwoody, who akes the Foreign Affairs &o ittee look like a basket of kittens, and al ost anyone &alled to fa&e Derald Kauf an"s &ulture &o ittee. At a ti e when go!ern ent is ore and ore o!erweening, ore 1owerful, ore aggressi!e and arrogant, we need the sele&t &o ittee syste urgently. 8t would be dreadfully un/ust and da aging if %r Kelly"s death were bla ed on it."<

< htt1:;;;1oliti&s;,--.;/ul;,';ira$.da!idkelly

3ere, essentially, we ha!e the sele&t &o

ittee also buying the line that this &urrent

situation was one that %r Kelly /ust found hi self in as well then... @o, what else got in there then? For he was angry about so ething, he arri!ed ho e so= Eost, though, would ha!e been 1leased wouldn"t they, to ha!e gotten away fro that that day. And he, after all, had been in 1lenty of s&ra1es before then, e!en ba&k in the O@@F= *** Abo!e, the e 1hasis 1ut where the Kelly fa ily 1ut it (it was how he was treated that day that did it for hi finally), ight see a bit light now (after that last read)? Eaybe not though, /ust not 1ut together &orre&tly yet, by the , not enough ti e then. :ur e 1hasis, if others wouldn"t ind where we 1ut it, would be o!er what was said being asked that as instead 7 was he a "fall guy", "&haff" e!en, that as &lose as you &an get to being asked if he wasn"t a 1atsy as well then, and indeed another sour&e has hi well (abo!e, 1.H)? And in that res1e&t this Kelly by then also? 8n what res1e&t ight he ha!e been a 1atsy as well then, o!ing away fro that ight ha!e been a loo ing thought for %r

1arti&ular &onte5t then? 2a&k to 3awton now then, for we ha!e to fit hi in again sooner than later again now.

And now not /ust for what under1inned his ty1e of thinking, the hel1 he &ould ha!e been there, but now also for what to the 3utton in$uiry, here both lines of thinking &an hel1 align us further now. 2efore the 3utton in$uiry then (fro &o abo!e again, 1. ), 3awton said then, essentially, that, " he was Kwell nigh &ertainK that %r Kelly itted sui&ide, and 1robably de&ided to do so on or after +uly 'A...
his edia":

That, "the a/or fa&tor Iin this deathJ was the se!ere loss of self estee , resulting fro feeling that 1eo1le had lost trust in hi and fro his dis ay at being e51osed to the That, "he would ha!e seen it as being 1ubli&ly disgra&ed..."

That, "he ust ha!e begun ( he is likely to ha!e begun to think that, first of all, the 1ros1e&ts for &ontinuing in his 1re!ious work role were di inishing !ery arkedly and, indeed, y &on/e&ture that he had begun to fear he would lose his /ob altogether..." That, the effe&t of that would ha!e been that, "that would ha!e filled hi with a 1rofound sense of ho1elessness6 and that, in a sense, his life"s work had been not wasted but that it had been totally under ined..."

And (this on another o&&asion), and on the sub/e&t of %r Kelly"s sui&ide:

other"s sus1e&ted

That, "an indi!idual who had a &lose relati!e who had &o itted sui&ide ay be ore &o fortable with taking his or her own life but, e$ually, with Kinti ate knowledge of IitsJ

terrible i 1a&tK

ight be less likely to follow suit." '-

'- Para1hrased ( fro , he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. '-*.

' ends .*** , starts, fear %r Kelly had a lot of fear of the 8ra$is. 4hy he e!en thought that the IitsJ terrible i 1a&tK ' ends .*** , starts Fear begins %r Kelly had a lot of fear of the 8ra$is. 4hy he e!en thought that the ho e? 4hat fed this fear we would ha!e s1ent as ight kill hi at ight be less likely to follow suit."

ight kill hi


ight ask? 4as it general? Possibly. :b!iously, for the

ins1e&tors in 8ra$, there would ha!e been so e danger felt at all ti es, and so they u&h ti e together as 1ossible as well, the e!enings, whene!er, on sense that. ight not ha!e been able to all the ti e though. Ondoubtedly o ents there and one has been des&ribed for %r Kelly as they &ertainly wouldn"t ha!e been !ery wel&o e there. )o C$ually, ob!iously, they here. And while this ight see a bit dark now, we are going to wonder about that laser ight ha!e been so e sort of o!ed slowly there would ha!e been tense

light in&ident again now, about whether or not that

stunt now as well, a bit of 3ollywood e!en 7 it 1layed around "his heart...

u1wards" to his head... %ark as well ha!e said, and it would ha!e had to ha!e been then as well. @till all"s fair in lo!e and war as well, don"t they say, still say, and war was &o ing one way or another our ba&k, then thinking on... This, anyway, in the &onte5t as to an instan&e of what ight ha!e fed the fear for our an ight ha!e realised one day as, fro thinking

an in 1arti&ular, of 8ra$, 8ra$is, during the O9@):E 1hase on ins1e&tions (u1 till the end of '<<>)6 that 1hase o!er with before the last ins1e&tion regi e was installed (end of ,--,) ( O9E:08) (Onited 9ations Eonitoring, 0erifi&ation and 8ns1e&tion )o ission)6 with the 8@D (the 8ra$ @ur!ey Drou1), its ar then on as well: in 8ra$. And this fro Pederson again as well, %r Kelly"s inter1reter in 8ra$, an A eri&an Ar y intelligen&e offi&er also, in '<<>, and friend fro

":ne night in '<<>, fi!e years before the O.@. and 2ritain in!aded, the 1air shared a life(or(

'' Para1hrased ( fro , he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. '-*.

death e51erien&e on a stroll around the 8ra$i &a1ital. @uddenly, a red laser dot a11eared on the 2ritish s&ientist"s &lothes o!er his heart: an unseen sni1er had hi in his sights. The laser bea o!ed slowly u1wards until it was trained on the &entre of Kelly"s forehead. A id unbearable tension, the red dot re ained there for what see ed like an age. The sni1er didn"t 1ull the trigger ( it was si 1ly a warning. 8ra$i offi&ials brushed off the in&ident, sniggering that it was /ust "kids 1laying around". 2ut Kelly knew his life was in gra!e danger, infor ing his younger &o 1anion that he had been told by intelligen&e sour&es that he was nu ber three on a @adda 3ussein death list as a result of his work."',

And, ba&k then, we also ha!e it, that %r Kelly had told Pederson that he didn"t belie!e his life would end there anyway (that he would ne!er be killed there if he was to be)6 rather, if that was to be, his life would Cngland instead.'. 3ere we are wondering about this in 1arti&ular now, as Ea/ Pederson has of late (,-'-'H), also &a e out now in su11ort of &lai s that our &ut steak with his right ar hi self that be&ause of his an was urdered as well ba&k then, ada ant e!en ( that as he &ouldn"t swallow 1ills6 that as he &ould hardly (let alone &ut his left wrist hi self then)6 that as he had other, he knew first hand of the hearta&he... said he ne!er would anyway (she &a e out with that before, ,--> '*), do that to ore likely end in the woods near his ho e in

And that is as 3awton has suggested before (abo!e), as well, that that would not, generally, be a fa&tor. "3e told the in$uiry that an indi!idual who had a &lose relati!e who had &o follow suit."

itted sui&ide

ay be

ore &o fortable with taking his or her own life ight be less likely to

but, e$ually, with Kinti ate knowledge of IitsJ terrible i 1a&tK

(4ell, we &ould add here, so ething o!er(rode that 1re(set 1osition then, if that is not right= And e!en 3awton says now he did this, des1ite that). These, Pederson"s o1inions, &ould ha!e &o e out at the in$uiry, but did not, as Pederson was not 1ressed to gi!e e!iden&e to the in$uiry (and why should she ha!e been anyway, then?). Father she ga!e a state ent ( that in the &onte5t of those o!erseas (nonetheless in &onta&t with %r Kelly u1 till then), being asked before the
', 8bid: 1. <<. 13 8bid. 14 htt1:;;www.daily ail.&;news;arti&le(',<.*G>;4hy(8 (&ertain(friend(%r(Kelly( l '* htt1:;;www.daily ail.&;news;arti&le('-*-<'<;%a!id(Kellys(&losest(fe ale(&onfidante():OL%9T( killed(hi l 16 Fefer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. '-G.

in$uiry as to whether or not there had been any signifi&ant &hange they"d noted while in &onta&t with our an in those last few days also? Pederson, 1ressed to a11ear before the in$uiry this would ha!e been $uite so e testi ony then. 2ut it was 1lain, ba&k then, that she wouldn"t e!en if asked anyway. 8n fa&t she didn"t want to be na ed e!en, then. @till her na e was leaked, to the imes, 1ortrayed then as a "shadowy Eata 3ari figure" whi&h startled her, so ewhat, a11arently. @till, now she"s &o e out, talking.'A And so we ha!e a $uestion here then? This, why this fro now then, Pederson now and aybe, ore aybe not

for&ibly now as well then? 8s it si 1ly, 1erha1s, be&ause she has been tra&ked down ore effort has gone in to get her to talk(?). A bit of that so tied in with the ilitary now? @o e guilt? 4ell we &an"t say, don"t know. 2ut, 1ut

another way, again, she &ouldn"t be so sure, &ould she, so why say so, that she is so sure, and now, why now as well? )ould be, &ouldn"t it, that now she realises what a !ery de&ent hu an being our an was as well then, knows the differen&e now, and indeed she has said so as well.'> And, if that were the &ase, of late, then so eone else as well, it would be diffi&ult 7 as diffi&ulty as it looking ba&k, looking in, looking on... 4e asked. abo!e, what light night, now we for hi ight ha!e fed this fear in %r Kelly? 4e re&ounted the laser ight ha!e &ut %r Kelly"s steak u1 ilitary? ight ha!e to be bla ed then an as well,

ight ha!e been for our

ight e!en wonder if Pederson

as well then? And then that then in any other res1e&t as well then? For,

whate!er else she was, then, she was also an offi&er in the A eri&an

4ell a "Er Toad" has said that she did /ust that, anyway, and that in another res1e&t as well 7 that she fed our an, others there as well, dodgy intelligen&e su11osedly fro on the ground in 8ra$ but not. And, Er Toad says, it was in this other res1e&t that %r Kelly"s e 1loyers were &on&erned also, about this friendshi1 with Pederson. @o in other words, fro that (if there is anything in this?), his e 1loyers weren"t /ust &on&erned about his &onta&t with /ournalists then (there where a blind eye had been turned, u1 till war anyway), rather "they" were kee1ing a good eye out on this before then instead. Er Toad now, as well then, this 1ublished, 1osted, after the in$uiry had &losed, before the re1ort was 1ublished though, not that this would ha!e been taken any noti&e of then anyway, still should it be now, another $uestion:
'A htt1:;;www.daily ail.&;news;arti&le(',<.*G>;4hy(8 (&ertain(friend(%r(Kelly( l '> htt1:;;www.telegra1h.&;news;uknews;'H*,*<A;A eri&an(tells(of(her(friendshi1(with( l .

"Er. Toad 1osts on the Duardian Talk foru KThis fro

on .- %e&e ber ,--.:

y friends on the ri!er bank:

3utton is a /igsaw 1uBBle. And like all the best 1uBBles there was a 1ie&e issing. @o e 1eo1le ha!e found the issing 1ie&e, but they kee1 trying to 1ut it in u1side(down. '<<> Eai Pederson atta&hed to Kelly as O9@):E translator. '<<> O9@):E out of 8ra$ Iki&ked outJ. '<<> To Eangold 1resents Panora a do&u entary re!ealing e5tensi!e infiltration of O9@):E by national se&urity ser!i&es I ore on this, to &o eJ. ,---(,--. Eo% be&o es sus1i&ious of Kelly"s relationshi1 with Pederson Iwhi&h stays &lose, he !isits, 2ahai asse blies, and so onJ. 2egins o!ing Kelly towards the door arked "e5it", but does it $uietly so as not to alar Kelly or his friends o!erseas. 9o grading in&rease, retire ent age redu&ed fro G* to G-, o!ed to PF role with no a&&ess to &lassified infor ation. IThis early retire ent does see to ha!e been loo ing, not ne&essarily settled though, this fro the 1ersonal e ails a!ailable'<J. Eay ,--. Dilligan inter!iews senior e ber of 3ED, who akes the )a 1bell H* inute &lai "off the re&ord". Dilligan &annot run the story without a &reditable sour&e, so is 1ointed to Kelly as "unattributable" Eo% sour&e. Dilligan goes to Kelly, tells hi he knows the H* inute &lai is fi&titious and 1lays the "na e ga e" I2os&h said thisJ, then goes ho e and writes u1 his 1ie&e o!ernight using info fro sour&e ' effe&ti!ely attributed to Kelly. Kelly is baffled by Dilligan"s inter!iew Ithe authorshi1J, but on&e Dilligan"s 1ie&e goes out he realises he has been set u1. 3e writes to Eo% to ad it the unauthorised inter!iew but denies he is the original sour&e of Dilligan"s infor ation... The )8A did to Kelly what they did to e!eryone, lied to hi about 8ra$"s 4E%. The differen&e is that they thought Kelly"s 1osition as Eo% bio(wea1ons e51ert would allow hi to influen&e the 1oli&y of 3ED. 3ere"s how it was done: Pederson was a O@ airfor&e translator working fro Arabi& to Cnglish. After the re o!al of O9@):E fro 8ra$ in '<<>, e!iden&e of 4E% &a1ability &a e fro satellites and s uggled do&u ents. These would land first on the desk of Es Pederson and her &olleagues for translation, before 1assing to the s&ientists for analysis, who then ad!ised O@D. 8n the &ase of Pederson, howe!er, the do&u ents did not &o e fro 8ra$, but fro the )8A. Pederson "leaked" fake intelligen&e to Kelly o!er an e5tended 1eriod, whi&h she &lai ed &a e fro s uggled 8ra$i do&u ents indi&ating the e5isten&e of 4E%. 2y ,--., Kelly was &o 1letely &on!in&ed not only of the e5isten&e of 4E% in 8ra$, but also belie!ed he knew what they were and where they were. 3owe!er, when Kelly atte 1ted to go to 8ra$ (1ost in!asion) to lo&ate the , he found his way ysteriously barred. :n a first o&&asion his offi&ial !isa 1ro!ed worthless and he was turned ba&k at Kuwait. :n a se&ond o&&asion he found hi self &onfined to an airbase for the duration of his stay on se&urity grounds. There ay be so e e!iden&e that shortly before his death, Kelly be&a e aware of the nature of Pederson"s infor ation... '< @ee end of, he fuss about )elly* 2efore.

IAnd in that res1e&t that ay be in this way. That inJ 1re1aration for his ne5t 1lanned !isit to 8ra$ Ihe didn"t ake thisJ Kelly a11ears to ha!e shared infor ation fro Pederson with Dabriele KraatB(4adsa&k, a Der an ar y wea1ons ins1e&tor and biologi&al wea1ons e51ert. IAnd itJ a11earIsJ fro her re1ly, howe!er, that she was less than &on!in&ed as to the !era&ity of the infor ation...",@e&ond to last 1aragra1h, there, here ( if, %r Kelly, did, then, be&o e this 1ossibility, that he ight ha!e been re&ei!ing faked u1 ore aware of

aterial in this way, fro anaged this either

a friend6 if he was able to link so e of his own &onfusion at ti es with Pederson (in this way)6 then it would a11ear, reasonably, that he ight ha!e be&ause he was told of this (of that by so e agent of E8G then ( unlikely though and whose to say he would ha!e belie!ed this anyway)6 otherwise he would ha!e arri!ed at that unha11y &on&lusion by the ightily unha11y 1ro&ess that &an be u1on refle&tion as well then. This, that, the ty1e of thinking whi&h de!elo1s, so %urkhei has said abo!e ( "only if its de!elo1 ent be&o es i 1erati!e. That is, if &ertain ideas and instin&ti!e senti ents whi&h ha!e hitherto ade$uately guided &ondu&t, are found to ha!e lost their effi&a&y, no longer suffi&e." that has a11eared... Any &ontention though, that Pederson had 1assed %r Kelly )8A ins1ired do&u ents (there was some other torment , a little. And here, Er Toad has said entioned abo!e, the FA) eeting,,)6 and that %r Kelly had worked that out for hi self as well then6 finally, then, has to sta&k u1 at least ore, enough you would think, as well, for us to look at the $uality of his 1ost a little further then. 3ere we ha!e then, a 1erson, Toad says, that when things &a e to a head for hi , when he &ould no longer hide, nor hold that or those thoughts ba&k, this 1ut hi final s1iral then. 2a&k to the nearer the end of the abo!e fro KraatB(4adsa&k, ight ha!e hel1ed hi Toad then ( the in a

Fefle&tion thus, %urkhei

has it, we"!e

seen this before as well, inter!enes then, has its own &ourse, to fill the ga1 (the hole),

suggestion that another ar y wea1ons ins1e&tor, the Der an Ar y offi&er, Dabriele see this then? )ould we !erify anything of that? )ould we that would gi!e us so e &onfiden&e with this Er Toad then, that we did ha!e so ething here, for that would 1ossibly ha!e been 1ri!ileged infor ation then (that 1ost .- %e&e ber ,--.), and with so e sensiti!e e ails released (one fro KratB(4adsa&k), released only after the 3utton re1ort was released, end of +anuary, ,--H, then?
,- htt1:;;drda!idkellyin$uestre$uired.blogs1ot.&o ;,-'';-G;death(of(da!id(kelly(and(se5ed(u1( w l ,' As abo!e, fro the work of +ones, Fobert Alun. ,, :r "tur oil" as @i on 3oggart 1ut it, then. 2a&k u1, 1. .

This, we thought

ight ha!e been si 1le at first ( that we

ight then see a finger1rint

as well then ( 1ro!e, we

ean, that Er Toad did indeed ha!e friends on the ri!er bank

(E8G). 9ot so though, not so si 1ly so anyway. Dabriele KraatB(4adsa&k did not a11ear before the 3utton in$uiry, but she was, like Pederson, inter!iewed and her na e, like Pederson"s, did &o e u1 during the in$uiry, in a different way though. 8t is re&orded that Assistant )hief )onstable Page was asked about her (Pederson), asked about so e aterial listed as "Dabriella"s &on&erns" after that as well then. aterial found in so e ti e before then. These (sti&k with "&on&erns" here), were three 1ages of handwritten %r Kelly"s brief&ase when it was sear&hed, there fro

:ne 1age, the third (of Dabriella"s), is a!ailable, but it is 1urely te&hni&al. The other two are e bargoed as 1ersonal. There is one, 1ersonal, fro his 1ersonal ore fro Dabriella, so ewhat ail as well though. ,. First, A)) Page as re1orted in the

elegraph though (and this gi!es us so e ba&kground as well):

"The Assistant )hief )onstable of Tha es 0alley Poli&e, Ei&hael Page, told the 3utton 8n$uiry that offi&ers had in!estigated all %r Kelly"s &onta&ts in the last days of his life, in&luding Eiss Pederson. 3e said although she would not gi!e offi&ers a state ent, a re&ord was ade of her inter!iew but it added nothing that was of rele!an&e to his in$uiry into %r Kelly"s death. Poli&e also s1oke to another wo an who was &lose to %r Kelly through his work. Dabriella KraB 4adsak, an offi&er in the Der an ar y, had worked with hi for a nu ber of years in 8ra$, and had also been in &onta&t with hi in the days before his death. %r Kelly e51ressed to her &on&erns about the effi&a&y of the wea1ons ins1e&tion 1rogra e in 8ra$...",H

9e5t, the 3utton in$uiry line:

"'<<... * P. 3a!e there been other 1eo1le you ha!e &onta&ted and G taken state ents fro ? A A. 8n order, y Lord, there were twel!e indi!iduals > in&luding :li!ia 2os&h fro who we took state ents. < P. 4as one of those 1ersons Eia Pedersen? '- A. Mes, we inter!iewed Eia Pedersen. @he de&lined to gi!e '' a state ent as su&h but 8 ha!e a re&ord of the ', inter!iews that took 1la&e. '. P. 4ere you able to obtain any rele!ant e!iden&e fro her? 'H A. The &on!ersation with Eia Pedersen added nothing that '* was of rele!an&e to y in$uiry at all. 'G P. There was also so e &alled Dabriella KraB(4adsak, is 'A that right? '> A. Mes.
,. @ee link to these, end of, he &uss about )elly* 2efore. ,H htt1:;;www.telegra1h.&;news;uknews;'H*,*<A;A eri&an(tells(of(her(friendshi1(with( l

'< ,,' ,, ,. ,H ,*

P. 4ho is she? A. Dabriella KraB(4adsak is an offi&er in the Der an ar y. @he worked alongside %r Kelly in 8ra$ for a nu ber of years and had been in &onta&t with %r Kelly in the days before his death as indeed she had been for so e years before that. P. 4as she able to gi!e any rele!ant e!iden&e?

,-' A. 9othing that furthered y in$uiries at all. , P. There was a do&u ent T0P;,;,- headed KDabriella"s . &on&ernsK. 4as she able to e51lain what this eant to H you? * A. Mes, indeed y Lord. A11arently the do&u ent refers to G a &on!ersation or &on!ersations that she had with A %r Kelly between +une 'Hth and the 'Ath, and a11arently > refers to %r Kelly"s assess ent of the effi&a&y of the < ins1e&tion 1rogra e in 8ra$. 3en&e, 8 think there is '- a heading there whi&h says K)onfiden&e of legiti a&y and '' deterren&e effe&tK6 and a11arently around the issues ', that %r Kelly has re&orded there and re&orded nu bers '. along ea&h side of, they were dis&ussing those issues 'H and assessing i 1a&t of the 1rogra e...",*

Finally, here, and this relating to this do&u ent T0P;,;,- again, headed KDabriella"s &on&ernsK ( its &lassifi&ation then, ,;.rds of this, arked 1ersonal, not se&ret 7 so e &on&erns of a 1ersonal nature, it follows, had been e51ressed therein, then (yes; no?):
"C5hibit D34;';. ( handwritten list entitled KDabriele"s &on&ernsK ( not for release ( 1ersonal infor ation; T0P;,;--'< 7 --,-.",G

This 1ersonal. And so ha!e we got anywhere then, with Toad"s &ontention ( that there was so e sort of double(in!ol!e ent here, that so ething else &o es between Kelly; Pederson, their "friendshi1" about then? Last, this se&tion, the one 1ersonal e ail between Dabriele and %r Kelly, not e bargoed, and whi&h sure). 8n this e ail, our ay, or ay not, be in two 1arts (to u&h reda&ted to be an, has see ingly s1ent near a week in her &o 1any

so eti e before then (4adsak"s), and a1ologises, here, for being a little subdued then, thanks her for being so understanding as well:
"Frorn: %a!id Kell N @ent: ,. +une ,--. '- *> IA EondayJ To: @ub/e&t: Tele1hone Dabriele, 8 ho1e that the weekend was good 8 got ba&k late and it has been diffi&ult sin&e Ey tele1 hone is out of order( y 1ersonal nu berQstill works and of &ourse y


25 htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'**-;htt1:;;www.the(hutton(
in$;&ontent;trans&ri1ts;hearing(transH,.ht ,G htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'**-;htt1:;;www.the(hutton( in$;&ontent;e!iden&e(lists;e!iden&e(t!

Thanks I8t"s 1ossible this 1art, below, is earlier, not sure, or of when?J Thanks for a great week 8 had a lot on being /ust you 2est wishes, %a!id.",A y ind so 8 know that 8 was a little subdued ( thanks for

3ere we &ould be at the heart of so e understanding, so e hu an think we think. @till that would not see add, that is 1robably only so for all though ( as that this e ail e5ists at all, for us to eant, of &ourse, to show us that our an was feeling a bit

s&rewed anyway, around then... a different &onte5t entirely 1ossible of &ourse. @o this, fro Er Toad, we find, is only in 1arts useful now (this the reason we"!e ke1t

1arts to one side so far as well). @till, useful, last, here, is the suggestion of 1erha1s another &onte5t anyway. Eore, 1erha1s, for ru ination on the 1art of our an ba&k then, and the e ail, /ust abo!e, ight hint at so ething /ust like that as well? )onte5t wise this would be another side ( a down side, not an u1side. And to begin with Er Toad suggests, and obligingly, that 1ersons ha!e got this u1side(down anyway 7 that o11osing the only downside in town, for our an, generally agreed u1on:

"3utton is a /igsaw 1uBBle IToad says, abo!eJ. And like all the best 1uBBles I&an we 1ut "in town?"J there was a 1ie&e issing. @o e 1eo1le ha!e found the issing 1ie&e, but they kee1 trying to 1ut it in u1side(down Ithat"s all...J.

:f 1ri ary interest to us fro 1ie&e of 3addo&k RSR),

Er Toad (8

ean how far &an we go with Pederson, it abo!e again):

ight be hard to fet&h her ba&k fro

afar as well6 Dilligan we &ould still grill though, a

ight be this instead (fro

"Eay ,--. Dilligan inter!iews senior e ber of 3ED, who akes the )a 1bell H* inute &lai "off the re&ord". Dilligan &annot run the story without a &reditable sour&e, so is 1ointed to Kelly as "unattributable" Eo% sour&e. Dilligan goes to Kelly, tells hi he knows the H* inute &lai is fi&titious and 1lays the "na e ga e", then goes ho e and writes u1 his 1ie&e o!ernight using info fro sour&e ' effe&ti!ely attributed to Kelly. Kelly is baffled by Dilligan"s inter!iew Ithe authorshi1J, but on&e Dilligan"s 1ie&e goes out he realises he has been set u1. 3e writes to Eo% to ad it the unauthorised inter!iew but denies he is the original sour&e of Dilligan"s infor ation..."

And &o

on sense, we"d say, would tend to su11ort this. That in that Dilligan &ould

,A htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'**-;htt1:;;www.the(hutton( in$;&ontent;&o ;&o NHN--<<.1df

hardly ha!e en!isaged his story hi self (they 1layed the na e ga e 7 indeed= First na e out )a 1bell?,>). 8t is indeed feasible then that this idea &a e his way by way of another (?): "Ask hi , why don"t you, Kelly, about that, he has an o1inion about so e of this, /ust not saying yet, that"s all=" (:ur 1un&tuation). @o e other 1erson 1erha1s then, and no fan of )a 1bell in 1arti&ular either then. @o e history there, aybe, then ( so e s&ore to settle, 1erha1s, e!en? 2y our Er Toad e!en, landed hi self on&e...? Last here, this business of a na esake of %r Kelly"s as well now, &o ing out with this idea, that 1erha1s %r Kelly was a 4alter Eitty ty1e ( that ty1e instead of whate!er other ty1e he ight ha!e been. 2lair then, so e inferred, was behind this as well? 9ot the 22) web(site, this ti e anyway:
"2lair under 1ressure o!er Eitty re ark: The 1ri e inister is fa&ing &alls to sa&k his s1okes an for referring to go!ern ent wea1ons ins1e&tor %r %a!id Kelly as a K4alter EittyK &hara&ter. To Kelly ade the re arks during what %owning @treet regarded as off(the(re&ord &on!ersations with /ournalists about the 3utton in$uiry into the s&ientist"s death. :n Tuesday, Er Kelly said he Kdee1ly regrettedK unreser!edlyK to %r Kelly"s widow and fa ily... IFurther down, we &an all get &aughtJ K8 dee1ly regret, therefore Ithis Kelly didJ, that what 8 thought was a 1ri!ate &on!ersation with a /ournalist last week has led to further 1ubli& &ontro!ersy..." ,< aking the &o ents and Ka1ologised

This, %r Kelly"s wife, +ani&e, took 1arti&ular e5&e1tion to as well, and well she we &an at least add fro that, then, that there was no, then, &o


ha!e, indeed. And, well, here, that being of no 1arti&ular insight either then, we think on(all 4hitehall gossi1 going around about then, about our identified hi self as well then? 4ell he an and any other wo an. And on gossi1,

being the sub/e&t of, 1erha1s Toad, did he identify with this, and in so doing has he ight ha!e ( TT).

And now, notwithstanding all that, the fear, so e know it, would still ha!e been e!er( 1resent, with our an anyway. 3e"d entioned it again, to 2rou&her 7 that he ight be found dead near ho e (sa e to Pederson before then), u1dated, not a thought that has gone away then. 9ow why the ti ing of this attered to his fa ily later, we &an"t say either yet? That

this was one year before then (that he said this to 2rou&her), not early ,--., but early
,> Fefer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, p. '-G. ,< htt1:;;;,;hi;ukNnews;1oliti&s;.',

,--,, instead,that see s a key. 9ot then, /ust before war, that therefore not indi&ati!e of any 1arti&ular state of ind then? That it was the stress then, and the strain, the an down ( a1art fro that he ight entioned again, we hearings again, and one in 1arti&ular, that got their

would ha!e &o1ed...? @a e as he &o1ed with the fear,

su11ose, well they i agined so? 2ut yes, a &hange, in de eanour, outlook, would definitely ha!e &o e about then, would ha!e definitely been noti&eable. *** he passion for truth is silenced by answers that have the undisputed weight of authority.'.4ell, not so far has this been the &ase anyway. And so worthy of 3ollywood itself, what"s left o!er here. And that sort treat ent, surely, &an"t be that far away either? Fussell )rowe, 1erha1s, in the s1ot, he right you ind? ore or less an Aussie now (Kiwi a&tually), the an at ti es as well. 4ould an 1erha1s for this. And he looks the 1art, like our

4hy he e!en &a e &lose to 1laying another Kelly in Australia (another na esake of our ans"), 9ed, ba&k when (in ,--. a&tually) ( another taken down in a fight that he (9ed), 1ossibly thought was still fair, so ehow, right u1 until his end. "@u&h is life," he said. 8t is said that he said so anyway. That role (so e 1arting that), taken finally by 3eath Ledger though, another Australian a&tor ( died ,-->, of an a&&idental o!erdose, it is said. :f who also. 9ao i 4atts, &o(star with Ledger in 9ed Kelly, would also 1lay 0alerie Pla e in &air +ame released in ,-'- as well. And now this is e!en getting rounder, sounder, for &o e to think, again, now, Pla e"s last /ob with the )8A (her &areer ended /ust then, three days out fro our an"s, by her being outed, a&&ording to this fil an anyway, &air u&h +ame), was to 1ull an 8ra$i s&ientist out of 8ra$ who &ould ha!e said, a11arently, the sa e to the world as our it has also been said that he always 1ut too u&h into his roles

ight ha!e said if he"d got ba&k in there (8ra$), as

well (and nobody &ould ha!e been sure he wouldn"t ha!e, now... that being that there was, now, no 4E% left to s1eak of e!en, by then, that the ins1e&tion regi e had been ore su&&essful than had been i agined before then. That, of &ourse, a story on its own. This a story in itself as well. @till, 0P "outed" three days before %K was "offed". Phew, so e ba&k(story, that, yes, &ould that be &onne&ted. Mes, but not fro
.- Paul Tilli&h. Theologian.


that is unlikely. @o ba&k to this s1ot that we are still in, now, instead. , fear ends *** . starts.
+et back. Mes, that, this, get ba&k= @1ot. 9ow this "dark a&tor"s" e ail instead, why not ( that e ail sent along with others at around ''('>a he s1ent two again). that last orning (they know this, all in a bun&h, fro of that also 7 before the 3utton in$uiry, 3utton e!iden&e)? That the only of its kind though, that we know of. And on that A)) Page said onths trying to get to the botto

own. This a story in itself as well. @till, 0P "outed" three days before %K was "offed". Phew, so e ba&k(story, that, yes, &ould that be &onne&ted. Mes, but not fro that is unlikely. @o ba&k to this s1ot that we are still in, now, instead. , fear ends *** . starts. +et back. Mes, that, this, get ba&k= @1ot. 9ow this "dark a&tor"s" e ail instead, why not ( that e ail sent along with others at around ''('>a that last orning (they know this, all in a "bun&h", fro 3utton e!iden&e, in&luding fro A)) Page .')? That the only of its kind though, that we know of. And on that A)) Page said he s1ent &onsiderable ti e on that also, &onsidering "inter1retations" and aking "e5tensi!e en$uiries" around those as well (before the 3utton in$uiry, again .,). Perha1s the only one of its ty1e then? C5&e1t, then, we do know, that %r Kelly also sent what has been des&ribed as a "&o bati!e" e ail .. to a &olleague before he went off on his walk later that day, his last outing (this he de&ided on that day also, a&&ording to 3awton.H. That should be ob!ious though, we"d say). These e ails, they are not all a!ailable ( this dark a&tors one a!ailable only, 1ossibly, be&ause it was sent to +udy Eiller at the -ew .ork imes who &o ented on it, re1orting, by way of Ers Kelly, that the &onte5t was no ore than a to do with "offi&ials at the Einistry of %efen&e and OK intelligen&e agen&ies" ( they were with s1arring o!er inter1retations of wea1ons re1orts:
"4ea1ons e51ert %r %a!id Kelly told of U any dark a&tors 1laying ga esV in an e( ail to a /ournalist hours before his sui&ide, it was re1orted today.
.' htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'*HG;htt1:;;www.the(hutton( in$;&ontent;trans&ri1ts;hearing(trans,>.ht ., 8bid: .. Fefer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. ''H. .H 8bid: 1. '-*.


The words a11eared to refer to offi&ials at the Einistry of %efen&e and OK intelligen&e agen&ies with who he had s1arred o!er inter1retations of wea1ons re1orts, a&&ording to the 9ew Mork Ti es. The essage ga!e no indi&ation that he was de1ressed and said he was waiting Kuntil the end of the weekK before /udging how his a11earan&e before the 3ouse of )o ons Foreign Affairs )o ittee had gone. The news1a1er did not na e the re&i1ient of the e( ail. 8t said another asso&iate had re&ei!ed a K&o bati!eK essage fro left his :5fordshire ho e for the last ti e on Thursday. %r Kelly shortly before he

The s&ientist said in the e( ail that he was deter ined to o!er&o e the s&andal surrounding hi and was enthusiasti& about the 1ossibility of returning to 8ra$. %r Kelly was grilled by EPs last week o!er his &o intelligen&e in the run(u1 to the war in 8ra$. ents to re1orters about the use of

3e had denied being the ain sour&e for a 22) story about &lai s that a dossier on 8ra$ had been Kse5ed u1K to boost 1ubli& su11ort for ilitary a&tion. %r Kelly"s wife +ani&e told the 9ew Mork Ti es her husband had worked on Thursday a re1ort he said he owed the Foreign :ffi&e and had sent so e e( ails to friends. @he said: KAfter lun&h, he went out for a walk to stret&h his legs as he usually does.K Ers Kelly said she had no indi&ation that her husband was &onte 1lating sui&ide. K2ut he had been under enor ous stress, as we all had been.K" .* orning on

8n total that was not a&tually all though, hardly any of that ty1e of s1arring o&&urring at all, we"ll go further... 4here our an was ha!ing so e real diffi&ulty that day was o!er /ournalists again ( his le!el of &onta&t, o!er addressing the $uestions 1ut to hi

how he would rate that, s1e&ifi&ally o!er @usan 4atts, Dilligan"s" &olleague, a&tually. 9ow that"s where real stress was ki&king in. 9ow while he 1referred to 1ut her at the botto of the list (he"d only et her on&e after all, ore than a year before 7 the list i5ing only had to note the ones he"d et with in the last year ( forget about the 1hone ander +ohn )lark .G who was

&alls), there was so e argu ent o!er this. 3ere he wasn"t fa&ing u1 well, e!en her na e u1 on one return e ail to &olleague 4ing )o hel1ing hi

with this task, substituting her last na e for another &olleagues last na e before the FA) and he ust ha!e

(4ells). And, if they &ould but agree, all of this had to be addressed then returned by end of 1lay that day (these were tabled 1arlia entary $uestions fro eeting), 1arlia ent in re&ess after then for the su here for our an was that 4atts had ta1ed a &on!ersation with hi s&ri1t, was lo&king hi er break. And real diffi&ulty

realised by now (or been told so e say, and that day as well so e also say...). .A Thus so e of that, !erbati in now 7 the 22) threatening to release so ething in te5t now, so ething they said, this a key word in all this, that would transform (see Dilligan"s original 1rogra 1rogra e state ent), the debate= @till, 4att"s atory," .> e, -ewsnight, 2lair thought, had been " ilder Ithough,J less infla

.* Fefer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. ''H. .G htt1:;;i;sys(files;Politi&s;do&u ents;,--.;->;,>;August,APE.1df 37 htt1:;;;1oliti&s;,--H;/an;,';huttonkey1layers.huttonre1ort .> Fefer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. H.

and so he

ight ha!e

ade it through that, after that. That in hindsight of &ourse.

'% will wait until the end of the week before judging / many dark actors playing games...' @o here we are now, at last, shuffling with this. And here we all are al ost four in now as well. 9o finds yet, we"!e said. And so nothing that &ould by then ha!e &ontinued to /ustify the ongoing &arnage &ontinuing either. 9ot that anyone was going to 1ull ba&k fro /ustifying that $uite so o1enly e!en then, anyway... 9ot e!en be&ause of that, no they would &ast about wouldn#t they (yes, no?), e!en it out, une!enly, ho1efully. Mes, that would be the way. And here, again, the fa&t, again, that this other Kelly did &o e u1 with this suggestion about our an being the 4alter Eitty ty1e, well, ight we &onsider this again now then, in another light? 4ell, here, first off, that &ould be, we think, so e sign of that (abo!e) as well. 8ndi&ati!e then (?) of an attitude that sa e ti e as that as well then? A &hanging attitude then, and that at about the sa e ti e being, we when the finds re ained elusi!e, then, that near four about the sa e ti e our any 2ritons, a1art fro arguably he was the first, we &ould easily ean, then, ay well ha!e begun to swirl around about the onths

onths in again. And that at

an was in the do&k as well, in the hot seat (1ardon us). And ake that &ase at least ( that at a ti e when 2lair (are we being unfair here?), had begun to wonder how

they"d got into this war, 1oliti&ian"s in&luded, the intelligen&e ser!i&es e!en...who else? And so here we ha!e rea&hed our an"s last day as well, weighed down by that

hi self 1erha1s he was, this $uestion, that $uestion, what else? A 1ro1osition then, here: That it now and away fro ba&k fro this worrying ay ha!e a11eared to our an at that sa e ti e

then (this /ust an a11earan&e), that there was so e distan&ing of "others" going on atter of the no 4E% on the ground, a sort of get e fa&tor at 1lay then, not fair 1lay? 9ot 2lair to be fair, either there.

8 1li&it if any of that was swirling around though, of &ourse, the suggestion then that there had ne!er been any 1oliti&al will for the fight anyway, and that 1lainly not right either. @till the 1ot (not 2lair 1arti&ularly, he didn"t hide behind any &olu n, but the rest of that lot), our an ay ha!e ended u1 feeling, was ne!er going to let itself be an"s brain &ould boil water), and &alled bla&k by the kettle anyway (it is said that our

so so e say this !ery day...

urder ensued then, be&ause of that, and so e &ontinue to say that to

3ere the 1ri ary book that &lai s this, 1ublished .<, the only one, also lets on as one of its 1lanks of e!iden&e, the fa&t that our following Friday with our 4ing )o our arranged that that !ery an had booked a flight ba&k to 8ra$ for the ander +ohn )lark ( entioned, his e!iden&e H-), that

an was enthusiasti& about returning (it looks like that as well), that he had orning in fa&t, that before he had gone for his regular walk,

on that to be inter&e1ted (this on to1 of e!erything else), before being dis1at&hed, and that 1art in a bungled and 1lainly ob!ious enough fashion as well then. Cnough so, anyway, as to be 1lainly ob!ious that that did ensue then. @o either that or this, then. And, well, thanks in a way to that work as well then, really. The eaning then, of half of this e ail now ( that he would see by "the end of ne5t the week" (1arlia ent would be in re&ess then, so he wouldn#t be hearing ba&k fro be "let ba&k in" ( and that in both senses, we"d say, is all that &an be eant to be

e bers who"d tabled the $uestions for re1ly for $uite so e ti e then), if he would understood by that ('% will wait until the end of the week before judging...' ). Pause, shift, the dark a&tors then, if we ha!e got that? :r, hang on, an, here, at, or by then, if you

oursel!es now... we don"t a&tually need to know this. 9ot who, if any, a&tually (and 1erha1s we should /ust sti&k with this?). For our 1refer, was, we &an at least definitely say now, was feeling a1art fro , not 1art of, then, that what was going on around, and or with hi . 4e ha!e then, don"t we, so e 1aranoia& thinking here (stage one this), affe&ting our an"s /udge ent now, this with this, ' many dark actors playing games...' &lai . Paranoia& thinking, this we"d like to ha!e ke1t away fro , as a &lai . 3ere, about us, it &an tou&h us all in and in a !ariety of anners not agreed u1on to this day. As a thought 1ro&ess that &an be hea!ily ore generally, after looking about a little here, this an ight arise, "&on&erning a 1er&ei!ed threat towards oneself, fro influen&ed by an5iety or fear. Put ty1e of thinking

.< he Strange !eath of !avid )elly (,--A) ( a re!iew of whi&h we are relying on 9i&k Fufford, of elegraph fa e, for. 3e, arguably, before any others, also the &o(res1ondent who set in train the distortions that would end u1 being a11lied to our e ails where our an in res1e&t of his edia relations (see 1ersonal entioned an was $ueried by his e 1loyer o!er the trailer story, Kelly"s na e not

then, but the language used, well: &ould that ha!e been hi ? And then the al(saadi story 7 "3e" (%r Kelly had said?), has known "where all the bodies are" all along" (against "for " our well, see abo!e in ain body, this work). an &o 1lained to 2os&h as

H- htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'*HG;htt1:;;www.the(hutton( in$;&ontent;trans&ri1ts;hearing(trans,'.ht

irrational fear of

ali&e by others..."H' Eore:

"A&&ording to &lini&al 1sy&hologist P. +. E&Kenna, KAs a noun, 1aranoia denotes a disorder whi&h has been argued in and out of e5isten&e, and whose &lini&al features, &ourse, boundaries, and !irtually e!ery other as1e&t of whi&h is &ontro!ersial. C 1loyed as an ad/e&ti!e, 1aranoid has be&o e atta&hed to a di!erse set of 1resentations, fro 1aranoid s&hiBo1hrenia, through 1aranoid de1ression, to 1aranoid 1ersonalityWnot to ention a otley &olle&tion of 1aranoid "1sy&hoses", "rea&tions", and "states"Wand this is to restri&t dis&ussion to fun&tional disorders. C!en when abbre!iated down to the 1refi5 1ara(, the ter &ro1s u1 &ausing trouble as the &ontentious but stubbornly 1ersistent &on&e1t of 1ara1hrenia.K" LinkedH,, "Para1hrenia was &oined by Karl Ludwig Kahlbau in '>G. not to na e so e s1e&ifi& disorder, but to draw attention that &ertain 1sy&hiatri& disorders tend to de!elo1 at a &ertain age. Kahlbau used for instan&e to distinguish between 1ara1hrenia hebeti&a (the insanity of the adoles&en&e) fro 1ara1hrenia senilis (the insanity of the elders). 8n '<'. IC illo Krae1elinJ re!i!ed the ter to denote a &o 1arati!ely s all grou1 of &ases whi&h he thought were suffi&iently distin&t fro s&hiBo1hrenia. Krae1elin distinguished 1ara1hrenia fro s&hiBo1hrenia ainly by its &ourse6 a&&ording to hi , 1atients with 1ara1hrenia showed a Kfar slighter de!elo1 ent of the disorders of e otion and !olitionK &o 1ared to s&hiBo1hrenia. Although Krae1elin did not gi!e an e51lanation for his &hoi&e of ter inology, &lini&al 1sy&hologist P. +. E&Kenna s1e&ulates that Krae1elin ight ha!e wished to e 1hasiBe a relation to 1aranoid s&hiBo1hrenia on one hand, and with 1aranoia on the other. Krae1elin"s 1ara1hrenia &on&e1t howe!er was &ontro!ersial fro the outset..." A&&ordingly, its e1ide iolgy 7 and this would ha!e been of interest to %urkhei ( sets out that this 1ara1hrenia was ost &o on in Der any and @1ain before, but now is ore e!ident in the Onited @tates of A eri&a than it was before also?

4ell what is we

ight well ask? And, well, we"re not so sure either, is our answer here any

to that. 2ut sub/e&t to that, we &ould add, anyway, that there are likely as seriously, now, for one state of know our . ends *** H starts After(all inute here, this any instan&es of self har , har

&auses for 1ara anything, in relation to any of that, as any &an i agine also... 2ut

ind, these, &an be a 1re&ursor to an had i agined so e har


others, we all know as well... There, that not $uite what we"d i agined so far, but we due hi , 1erha1s, for so e ti e. 9ot totally delusional then, e!er, before then.

)hara&teristi& of any of these related delusions, of &ourse, is the feeling that anything one &ould i agine state of know our ind, these, &an be a 1re&ursor to an had i agined so e har any instan&es of self har , har to

others, we all know as well... There, that not $uite what we"d i agined so far, but we due hi , 1erha1s, for so e ti e. 9ot totally delusional then, e!er, before then.
H' htt1:;;;wiki;ParanoiaX&iteNnote(E&Kenna'<<A(A H, htt1:;;;wiki;Para1hrenia

. ends *** H starts After(all )hara&teristi& of any of these related delusions, of &ourse, is the feeling that anything one &ould i agine &ould ha11en. )hara&teristi& of our si&knesses &ould be resurre&ted, he knew that, and an as he dealt with his fear, ight. An&ient ore than ore than that 1erha1s, we"d say, was that he leaked a little round the edges like any of us ore. And

and this a thought, that dee1 down so e an&ient 1art of us fears si&kness war anyway? 8 agine that, the una&&ountable at your door? Eore on this, kee1ing in ti e with %urkhei with 7 where

ight he end u1 here? 4e

would ha!e this higher le!er of fear (to begin with), this in&rease in this anything &ould ha11en any ti e grou1 in the O@A, and this statisti&ally higher in Der any and @1ain than anywhere else to begin with? 4ould it be in&reasing religiosity then, in the O@A, or so e off shoot of that ( say less $uestioning? The una&&ountable in&reasing anyway, that des1ite 1rayer, faith, so ething? 3ere 9ed Kelly"s attitude to it all (why not) ( well, he was hardly a 1erson who had faith in the syste , as in 0i&toria then, hardly afraid you ight think, ha!e thought, either (its likely that he was at least a little though). @till, des1ite that, he did say, a11arently, before he was hanged (Eelbourne gaol), U:h 4ell, su&h is life,V then. A res1e&ter of for&e also then, ore a dissenter than an assenter also, e5hibiting by that that so e ight ser!e us better finally, should life, finally, not go our s&e1ti&is , so e &yni&is , ore faith, or that e51ressed in another way, say by

way either... That Kelly, while he would ha!e, no doubt, &ontinued on his own way had he es&a1ed the &onse$uen&es of his offending, been 1ardoned, would ha!e still borne u1 the sa e anyway. 4e &ould at least say that. The O@A then, with its 1ubli& horror at ti es, the 1ubli& i agination &a1tured so e, the reins re o!ed there now then, rather to hot to1i& there. And here, to to1 this all, late onset of these fears o&&ur en. And @ays so ething that as well... 2a&k to our an again now though, to his fear, then, !ery real all the while. And so e ore so in wo en than in ore than anywhere, that leading not so u&h to ore faith ore feelings of hel1lessness instead? For whate!er ne5t( that a

ore often these o&&urren&es are related to deafness and to so&ial isolation.

balan&ing a&t we"d say here as well then, kee1ing that at bay, out not in, &ontaining it,

and that to be

aintained so ehow, and &oherently. And then, outlets re o!ed, these ounted u1, the una&&ountable ne5t= And 1arties are not best

being a&ti!ely blo&ked, his being able to talk it out (e5a 1le 2os&h H.), not u1, the stress would ha!e 1leased about this yet. Eu&h ado &ontinues still... 2ut there, here we are, the business end of it all, and you &an"t foresee, tell anything about anybody until you see the under 1ressure as well ( e!en if only afterwards (3awton said a lay 1erson wouldn"t ha!e seen this &o ing either). And we wouldn"t ha!e been able to tell anything about any of this without the out&o e of the 3utton in$uiry either... @o we are 1oints ahead here so ehow? And this is a little leakage as well, likely 7 lest the stress of all of it, of life"s &ontradi&tions, its see ing ounting senselessness, that whi&h we ignore, kee1 out ount u1 against us in so ehow, balan&e against this or that interest, lest these

1erson as well. 8f we had our wits about us, &onstantly, half of us would surely shuffle off s artly so ehow as well. All 1erfor an&e is a little leakage, really, in so e way, we get it out, so ehow (that or we get out?). 3ere (a little &ross oursel!es now), its fatuous isn"t it, really, to suggest that all our an &ared about was that he ight lose his /ob, so ehow? That as an ad/e&ti!e, in fa&t, &ould be a11lied to the whole sorry 1ro&ess and its 1ro&essing of. 9o wonder other 1arties are still &ross, want so e other 1arty brought to book o!er this so ehow still. The e51lanations, the out&o e, so e dis&onne&t there yet? A !ague feeling 1ersists... a &liff ahead...? *** Mes, aybe ( but now (and hard to lea!e that i age behind totally we know as well ( ore odern so&iologi&al thought infor s us ay well ha!e ended u1 with a &ause, a set of &onditions, we are not

but this should at least be "sobering" now), while we all.

ne&essarily talking, nowadays, about &ausation also. That not the &ase now at all, after

For what we &ould gras1 if we are to 1ro&eed fro that as u&h as e!er in our daily li!es fro

here (on fro



), is the

"near double in!ol!e ent of indi!iduals and institutions" (the so&iety we kee1) now ( now on as well.

H. 2os&h: "Yat one ti e he said he liked talking to

e Ithey talked al ost daily in&luding on that last orning as wellJ be&ause 8 had a I oreJ international 1ers1e&ti!e IthatJ in &ontrast to but &o 1li ented his te&hni&al ba&kground... the 1ress, e!eryone... fo&ussed on the wea1on as a s oking gun IbutJ it was the 1rogra es Ihe feared, be&auseJ 1rogra es Ithere had always been so e e!iden&e of theseJ i 1lied intent..." 3utton in$uiry, htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'*HG;htt1:;;www.the(hutton( in$;&ontent;trans&ri1ts;hearing(

44 Fro

Diddens" now, Anthony, his work: Sociology$ a 0rief but Critical %ntroduction ('<>,), London: Ea& illan.

And for o1eners here (on to this) "knowledge" ( while it indeed e$uate to 1ower (we the following reasoning now.... For, "although IDiddens" 1uts it this wayJ knowledge tentati!e Iis alwaysJ in&o 1lete..." And that &o as well.

ight be useful6 while it


ight think we &ould 1re!ent an o&&urren&e with that,

1re!ent atta&k e!en) ( this is not ne&essarily e 1owering at all, after all. And that for

ay be an i 1ortant ad/un&t to ight now about that

1ower, it is not the sa e as 1ower Ithat asJ our knowledge of history IisJ always on sense we

Further: "4e do not /ust li!e in history... our understanding of history is an integral 1art of what that history is." (There is so e re1rodu&tion then, so e re(&onstru&tion of our institutions, eaning, in this sense, our so&ial li!es, based on this). (our father in

Detting there, so ewhere near so e understanding here, %urkhei

so&iology, it is said), has also been &riti&ised for his &lai : That his "so&ial fa&ts," albeit interesting, illu inating (the out&o e of study &an often end u1 running &ounter to intuition, &an turn us round), these out&o es are not the sa e as laws of nature then (a natural s&ien&e this of their own !olition, ight ha!e been, he ho1ed), that as hu an beings &an &hange ight, do... That su&h as 1arti&les, ato s, the substanti!e

building blo&ks of life, &an"t, won"t, don"t... 9ow, here, Didden"s de1loys the sort of i agery that 1re&eding so&iology en/oyed, not e 1loyed nowadays, ne!er the less still useful to oursel!es now, for our 1ur1oses here, es1e&ially so:
"To s1eak of the "re1rodu&tion" of so&ial &ondu&t or so&ial syste s is to s1eak of the re1etition of si ilar 1atterns of a&ti!ity by a&tors se1arated fro ea&h other in ti e and s1a&e. 8t is !ery i 1ortant to stress this 1oint, be&ause u&h so&ial theory 7 in&luding that of %urkhei 7 is 1er!aded by the tenden&y to think in ter s of 1hysi&al i agery, a tenden&y whi&h &an ha!e da aging &onse$uen&es. @o&ial syste s in!ol!e 1atterns of relationshi1s a ong indi!iduals and grou1s. Eany so&iologists 1i&ture these 1atterns as rather like the walls of a building, or the skeleton of a body. This is isleading be&ause it i 1lies too stati& or un&hanging an i age of what so&ieties are like: be&ause it does not indi&ate that the 1atterning of so&ial syste s only e5ists in so far as indi!iduals a&ti!ely re1eat 1arti&ular for s of &ondu&t fro one ti e and 1la&e to another. 8f we were to use this sort of i agery at all, we should ha!e to say that so&ial syste s are like buildings that are at e!ery o ent &onstantly being re&onstru&ted by the !ery bri&ks that &o 1ose the IthenJ."" H*

Thus (if we

ight a&&e1t this, as gi!en), we are building with bri&ks fro any 1arti&ular &ourse either then...

below us

then, yet not fro

@till the bri&k, any bri&k, has to be there for us to gras1 it then doesn"t it. As we ha!e done re the "dark a&tor"s" e ail abo!e us, its below us now as well.
45 8bid, fro
Diddens, fro his "...0rief but Critical %ntroduction1' ('<>,), to @o&iology.

eaning at last. And as has been done

H ends ***

5 strange starts
8n the wake of a book &lai ing urder (before, footnote ,1. ), was done, the Kelly fa ily &alled

for "&al ".HG Dood &all. And using Diddens" i agery we &an see now how we get to this other sort of &all as often as we do as well then

@till the bri&k, any bri&k, has to be there for us to gras1 it then doesn"t it. As we ha!e done re the "dark a&tor"s" e ail abo!e us, its below us now as well. H ends *** * strange starts 8n the wake of a book &lai ing urder (before, footnote < ,1. ), was done, the Kelly eaning at last. And as has been done

fa ily &alled for "&al ".HA Dood &all. And using Diddens" i agery we &an see now how we get to this other sort of &all as often as we do as well then. For half(baked, that work gras1ed to begin with at the bri&ks /ust at hand. There was the $uestion of the no 4E%, whi&h then led to the $uestion of who had the of 8ra$i"s who had ost to lose then, should that be&o e a11arent too soon then? This, then, be&a e the grou1 issiled e!eryone all along then. 9o will for this war on the 1art of any others then, this way. And then, of &ourse, it had been agreed our an &ould go ba&k to 8ra$ the end of the ander )lark

following week, and that he was "keen" for that as well (why 4ing )o !isas or anything like that again then... H>).

had said so, and that his flight had been booked as well ( no &at&hes en!isaged with

There was one bri&k this work did rea&h $uite so e way for though, and this was 1retty i 1ressi!e we ust ad it, a bou$uet. The 2ritish, this way, &o!ered this urder u1 then ( that due to %r Kelly ha!ing !isited a site while working in 8ra$ in '<<*, where a "radiologi&al wea1on" had been tested eight years 1rior to then. Fea&hing for that 2ritish in!ol!e ent in that test sus1e&ted then 7 that !ia san&tion busting, aterially then (and there ay e!en ha!e been so e basis for that fuss on&e,

HG htt1:;;www.inde1endent.&;news;uk;1oliti&s;kelly(fa ily(a11eals(for(&al (after(new( urder(&lai s( by( 1(.<AHH*.ht l HA htt1:;;www.inde1endent.&;news;uk;1oliti&s;kelly(fa ily(a11eals(for(&al (after(new( urder(&lai s( by( 1(.<AHH*.ht l H> 4ing )o ander )lark e51lained these diffi&ulties before 7 see his e!iden&e at htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'*HG;htt1:;;www.the(hutton( in$;&ontent;trans&ri1ts;hearing(trans,'.ht

o!er long gun barrels there, Pro/e&t 2abylon H<), anyway, that lea!ing so e 8ra$i grou1 with so e sort of hold o!er the 2ritish go!ern ent fore!er of, hadn"t been &ited in the &assi belli for war either then, as ,--, dossier, whi&h is what all the fuss was o!er anyway. That this was, &ould ha!e been 1ossible link to our eeting '* +uly: (and we"ll 1refa&e this with a little shortly):
"PAG Er Ea1les: Mou said that your work whi&h went into the dossier was largely history and it was done in A1ril and Eay of last year. %r Kelly: Eay and +une, 8 think. PAA Er Ea1les: @orry, Eay and +une, and that you were away, either on lea!e or abroad, in August and early @e1te ber. 8n e!iden&e to us it has be&o e &lear that the final for of this dossier was 1ublished and e erged in a first draft, whate!er in that &onte5t it eans, a first draft of this do&u ent on <;'- @e1te ber last year and was 1ublished, 8 think, on ,.;,H @e1te ber. %uring that 1eriod did you go to any eetings or ha!e any dis&ussions with anybody about what was in there? %r Kelly: 9o. 8 would ha!e been in the &ountry at that ti e but 8 did not 1arti&i1ate in any eetings. PA> Er Ea1les: @o after you had written your bit in Eay and +une (((( %r Kelly: 8 forgot about it. PA< Er Ea1les: (((( you had nothing ore to do with it. 8 /ust wanted to ask you a &ou1le ore $uestions sin&e you are here. 4hen you were a wea1ons ins1e&tor with O9@):E in 8ra$ ( 8 only got this fro news1a1er re1orts and you &an tell e if it is not true ( you were shown by an 8ra$i general or inister a site in e!iden&e that 8ra$ had tested a radiologi&al wea1on, or sought to test a radiologi&al wea1on, a dirty bo b 8 su11ose in the /argon. %r Kelly: :n one ins1e&tion that 8 led the 8ra$i authorities asked that there should be a s1e&ial briefing to the tea and at that ission, whi&h was an inter!iew ission, the a&knowledge ent was ade by Deneral Fahi @haheen, together with 2rigadier 3aifa, that they had undertaken e51eri ents with radiologi&al wea1ons in '<>A. 8 ha!e been to the site sin&e but not to in!estigate the radiation. P>- Er Ea1les: Mou did not go to the site at the ti e? %r Kelly: 9ot at the ti e. 8 ha!e been there sin&e to in!estigate other &lai s. P>' Er Ea1les: 9ot in '<<* when you were there with O9@):E? %r Kelly: The site 8 a&tually went to in @e1te ber '<<*, but not to in!estigate that as1e&t. P>, Er Ea1les: 8s your only e!iden&e for this what Deneral @haheen told you? %id you &he&k that out through do&u ents or whate!er? %r Kelly: @ubse$uently do&u ents were found and there is a do&u ent that has been 1ro!ided to the Onited 9ations, a do&u ent whi&h has been leaked by the 4is&onsin 8nstitute and whi&h, unfortunately, is now a!ailable on the 8nternet. P>. Er Ea1les: %o you think that is true? %r Kelly: Ondoubtedly it is true. P>H Er Ea1les: 8 do not think it is gi!en u&h, if any, 1ro inen&e in the dossier, either in the history or in &urrent threats, and yet if 8ra$ had the te&hnology and ability to detonate a dirty nu&lear bo b 8 would ha!e thought that was 1retty signifi&ant. 8 hesitate to say that there is no ention of it in here be&ause 8 ay ha!e issed it, but 8 do not think there is. %r Kelly: 8 a not sure it is for e to dis&uss the dossier. P>* Er Ea1les: This is your sub/e&t. %r Kelly: 4e are talking about an histori&al as1e&t of so e '* years ago. 8ra$ &lai ed, and 8 think we belie!ed the , that that 1ro/e&t was ter inated in '<>>. P>G Er Ea1les: 4hen you were writing the histori&al bit of this in Eay and +une, did that feature in what you wrote? %r Kelly: 9o.
H< htt1:;;;wiki;Pro/e&tN2abylon

ore sin&e then, then. And, ade in this @e1te ber

this way, that would also e51lain why that e!ent that %r Kelly had been shown the site

an"s death in


&ir&u stan&es has o&&urred to Er 2aker following reading the trans&ri1t of the FA) ore that will be of use to us

P>A Er Ea1les: 8s there so e reason why it was left out? %r Kelly: Cssentially it had to be a &on&ise a&&ount and you &annot in&lude e!erything. Er Ea1les: A dirty nu&lear bo b 8 would ha!e thought was 1retty signifi&ant yself." *** Mes, "signifi&ant," to this other author 2aker, anyway, who has sin&e, a11arently, "tabled a )o ons $uestion" asking for ore

7 as

u&h onto this now, as

urder before. @till that was

so e rea&h. 2ut in short this

an has 1robably got a bit &arried away there. an didn"t sto1 where he

3ere, e!en 9i&k Fufford, who re!iewed this work, wondered why this &ould ha!e before

urder? 3e had, 2aker, ad itted that it was "1lausible" that %r Kelly had

taken his own life, but then he went on? 2ut then, Fufford, in his re!iew, went a little strange hi self 7 in suggesting that others with so e res1onsibility for all this fuss had es&a1ed &riti&is , had e erged uns&athed, whilst others who hadn"t shouldn"t ha!e: "Y sifting through testi ony fro 1arlia entary in$uiries Ias we ha!e as wellJ, whi&h he &o bines with his own resear&h, 2aker e51oses 7 ore thoroughly than e!er before 7 a go!ern ent so deter ined to build a &ase for going to war that it either lied or was unable to distinguish truth fro fi&tion. 8t had to &ross a legal threshold of 1roof before our own ar ed for&es would agree to fight. 3en&e %owning @treet su oned u1 Uintelligen&eV that was little ore than hearsay or downright bogus. The now(infa ous H*( inute warning of a &he i&al atta&k &a e fro a dubious single sour&e. The &lai that @adda Ian A eri&an &lai J was sho11ing for yellow(&ake uraniu in 9iger was based on forged do&u ents. @adda #s obile s all1o5 laboratories turned out to be trailers for filling hydrogen balloons, 1art of an artillery syste sold by 2ritain to 8ra$ in '<>A. "Fe arkably, as 2aker re inds us, the 1rotagonists are still in offi&e. +ohn @&arlett, the &hair an of the +oint 8ntelligen&e )o ittee, has been 1ro oted to &hief of E8G6 Deoff 3oon is now &hief whi16 +a&k @traw, the /usti&e se&retary and lord &han&ellor6 and, 1erha1s ost gallingly, Tony 2lair is now a 1ea&e en!oy. Eeanwhile, the 3utton in$uiry skewered en who were largely inno&ent. Dreg %yke, Da!yn %a!ies and Andrew Dilligan left the 22)." *'

@ti&king to a 1oint, the reason for the 3utton in$uiry (the &on&ern was our de ise), this thought (&ri e?), that the 3utton in$uiry "skewered what he was writing about and we"ll &o e to that. *** 9ow, were we to &lai before), well, fro

an"s ore of

en who were

largely inno&ent", would ha!e been hard to ba&k u1 had Fufford to read a little

that hearings, in$uiries, get us anywhere (we wondered atter now, that fa&tor as well...

the 3utton in$uiry, we ha!e a&tually got &loser to 1oints worth

in&or1orating into our general understanding of this Taking a wider !iew (short ter

here), we should 1erha1s e!en allow now, that as a lot ight well then be this !ery a&t, atters ost in the

of infor ation &an take so e ti e to refle&t u1on ( ore ti e to refle&t u1on than ight be allowed for in any 1arti&ular ti e fra e), it this &olle&ting together of aterial, data, ight !ery well be what

50 @ee the @trange %eath of %a!id Kelly, by 9or

*' 8bid.

an 2aker. Fe!iewed by 9i&k Fufford. he Sunday imes, 9o!e ber

'', ,--A (for referen&e to this): htt1:;;dr(da!id(kelly.blogs1ot.&o.nB;,--AN''N-'Nar&hi! l

long run (thinking Diddens... "our understanding of history often tentati!e, in&o 1lete," that ha!ing ra ifi&ations in the long run. 4e always will now, won"t we (?), ha!e the 1otential, to de!elo1 further footnotes for further in$uiry (we"re doing it now), fro that. %igitised, a&&ess there, keywords &an get us in there as well. 2a&k to that, Fufford, his re!iew (abo!e). 4ere we to /udge, now, if %r Kelly &ould e!er ha!e had any basis to say that the @e1te ber dossier was transfor ed 1er se. as 1er Dilligan"s re1ort on his Today 1rogra it, that our e, then it would ha!e to be the &ase, wouldn"t to ha!e been an had also seen, then, the dossier both before and after that ean, here...

transfor ation had taken 1la&e, and that late in the day for hi definiti!e on that as well then, we

4hen Ann 3artley, gi!ing e!iden&e at the 3utton in$uiry was 1ressed, she was 1ressed to the 1oint where she realised that our the se&ond &o @e&urity &o ittee that our ittee, the day after the FA) )o an had (herself being the &hair of ittee hearing, there where our an an attended as well then, this 8ntelligen&e and

had &lai ed again, as he had the day before, that he had only e!er had li ited in1ut into this dossier anyway, and that only early on, and that only his &ontribution also, the histori&al &ha1ter, ,), not aware of that herself before. %inge ans (&ounsel for the 3utton in$uiry), got that out of her, this way:
EF@ 4898FFC% A99 TAML:F (&alled) C5a ined by EF %89DCEA9@: ITaylor answeringJ: "...The 1art of the dossier that he I%r KellyJ had had so e &onne&tion with was the general ba&kground 1art of the dossier, whi&h 8 think had been &o issioned ba&k fro the Foreign :ffi&e side before things were brought together. P. 4hat be&o es 1art ,, the &ha1ter on the history? A. The ba&kground, yes, at a u&h earlier stage. P. That was your understanding on the )o ittee? A. Mes. That is what he told us. P. %id anyone tell you: hang on a inute, that is not entirely right, he was in!ol!ed on '-th @e1te ber &o enting on growth edia and he was in!ol!ed on '<th @e1te ber Idossier 1ublished ,H @e1tJ at a eeting of %8@ staff where the dossier was sub/e&t to final &o ents? A. 9o. 3e did not tell us that. P. 8 know he did not. A. And nobody else did..."

A fine line our an

an had been walking here ( but it did look (does now anyway), like our ittee getting in the

ight ha!e got by there, got ba&k to work, without that &o

way either? 9or did 3utton bring this out in his re1ort finally either. 2ut there it is, still there, in the trans&ri1t. *** '- +uly, the 22), ha!e 1ut out a state ent 1ro ising a re!elation that would transfor 1hone: the debate. This was read out then, '- +uly, to %r Kelly, by 2os&h, o!er the

H "Yat the end of our * &on!ersation on <th +uly he says: well, kee1 in tou&h G with e and let e know what ha11ens, !is a !is the A 1ress. > P. @o you had a few ore tele1hone &on!ersations? < A. Mes, we s1oke through the ne5t (( about e!ery day during '- that ti e. '' P. %id you s1eak about the Dilligan 1ie&e at all or about ', the Dilligan situation? '. A. 4ell, 8 re e ber talking to hi , 8 think it was the ne5t 'H day, the 22) had 1ut (( sorry, the Eo% had 1ut out '* a state ent Iabout a 1erson who had &o e forwards, not na ing %r Kelly, but suggesting that this 1erson who ay be being alluded to by Dilligan, none the less did not belie!e he was the sour&e of all that Dilligan was &lai ing he had been "told"J and then the 22) had 1ut out 'G a &ounterstate ent, and then (( sorry, 8 (( there was 'A a 22) &ounterstate ent and another Eo% state ent6 and '> 8 was (( 8 had two of those. :ne of the Eo% state ents '< and the 22) one (( 8 do not re e ber but 8 &ould go ,- through (( 8 was reading through to hi , and we kind of ,' were trying to ake sense, you know, what were they ,, trying to &orrelate. 8t see ed a bit &onfusing or so, ,. but at one 1oint he did say, be&ause 8 entioned in the ,H 22) state ent that @usan 4atts was brought in there, the ,* 22) state ent had entioned @usan 4atts (( .. ' P. )ould you sto1 there for a o ent? )ould we go to , )A2;';*'>. 4e &an 1erha1s see what the state ent is. . This is a state ent issued by the 22), 8 think, on H <th (( sorry, *'A, 8 think the state ent begins. * A. 3 , oh yes, okay. G P. )A2;';*-,. A A. 4e ight want to go ba&k to that one, but yes. > P. 8 think you &an see, at the foot of the 1age, there is < a referen&e to @usan 4atts. %o you see this? '- A. Fight, yes. '' P. %o you re&ognise this state ent as the 22) state ent? ', A. Mes. That was it, yes. 8 &o ented to hi that notes '. were de1osited in the 22) legal de1art ent and, you 'H know, had he seen those, be&ause 8 do not know what the '* nature of &orres1onden&e was between whate!er. And also 'G 8 entioned that (( 8 read that se&tion out to hi , and 'A he was !ery (( so ewhat indignant and said: well, what '> does she ha!e to do with this? '< P. Mou read that se&tion out? ,- A. Mes. ,' P. )an you &larify whi&h 1arti&ular se&tion you read out to ,, hi ? ,. A. K4hat we do know is that Er Dilligan"s notes and a&&ount ,H of what he was told are !ery si ilar to the notes of ,* a &on!ersation @usan 4atts, s&ien&e editor of 9ewsnight, .H ' had with her sour&e whi&h led to the 9ewsnight re1orts , of +une , and H.K . P. @o you read that to hi and he is indignant? H A. And he says: what does she ha!e to do with this?"

IThey get on to the 22) state ent now...J


' KFi&hard @a brook, %ire&tor of 9ews, had been told , the na e ...K . And 8 read this out to hi at so e 1oint during this H ti e: * K4hile the 1ost held by the sour&e is known also to G Dreg %yke, the &or1oration"s %ire&tor Deneral ...K A 8 read that to hi and 8 said they are said to ha!e > been assured by his knowledge, with one e5e&uti!e < boasting that dis&losure of his identity would transfor '- the debate. *,

:n this here, though, e!en if the 22) had 1ublished 4att"s ta1e re&ording, this trans&ri1tion did not &ontain any e51ression anything like transfor ed either (/udge this for yourself though, at*.). 9or did %r Kelly, on that ta1e, 1oint in 1arti&ular towards )a 1bell o!er any as1e&t of this atter, and &ertainly no ore than did 4atts. Father this &on!ersation, with 4atts (2os&h e 1hasises this &on!ersationalist as1e&t herself, abo!e, her ty1e of &onta&t with %r Kelly, res1e&tfully), was ore that than ins1e&tion 1ro&ess to begin with then as well, ore friendly we would suggest now, u&h else. A &on!ersation 1ra&ti&ally, that was a&tually about the ore a &hat about Fu sfield (%efen&e ight &o e out with ay ha!e been

@e&retary, O@), to begin with a&tually, and about whate!er Fu sfield ne5t (at that ti e Fu sfield was a&tually suggesting that the 4E%

destroyed before war...). 8n fa&t the &on!ersation (this) started and finished with interest in that, hi , as well. And in fa&t we &ould, e!en, string this &on!ersation out with so e &aden&e added in now (not that we would wish to o!erly stret&h this bow), as this does show a drift in te 1o:
Keywords; talks 2li5 by %K Fu s by %K Fu s by @4 Fu s by @4 )a 1 by @4 )a 1 by @4 )a 1 by @4 )a 1 by @4 )a 1 by %K )a 1 by %K 2li5 @ada @ada 2li5 by @4 by @4 by %K by @4 Fu s by @4

*, htt1:;;www.the(hutton(in$;&ontent;trans&ri1ts;hearing(

53 htt1:;;i;sys(files;Politi&s;do&u ents;,--.;->;'.;s/wN'N--.A(--H..1df.

Fu s by @4 Fu s by @4 2lair by @4 ***

Dilligan"s release now, as broad&ast, the "transfor ed" &lai , The oday 1rogra ,< Eay:

e on

K8 ha!e s1oken to a 2ritish offi&ial who was in!ol!ed in the 1re1aration of the dossier and he told e that until the week before it was 1ublished the draft dossier 1rodu&ed by the intelligen&e ser!i&es adds little to what was already known. 3e said "8t was transfor ed the week before it was 1ublished to ake it se5ier". The &lassi& e5a 1le was the state ent that 4E% were ready for use in H* inutes. That infor ation was not in the original draft. 8t was in&luded in the dossier against their wishes be&ause it wasn"t reliable.K

That (abo!e), was brought u1 at the FA) &o 3utton e!iden&e again*H:

ittee hearing as well, this a!ailable !ia

"PG, Er Po1e Ito %r KellyJ: Er Dilligan said in his arti&le in the 'ail on Sunday of ' +une K8 asked hi K, the sour&e, Khow this transfor ation ha11ened..."**

8 ask you? 9ow: This &on!ersation insertion again then, ours ( and fro 1i&ked u1 after that by the +uardian:
"4hat Andrew Dilligan said in the 'ail on Sunday Iin the +uardianJ "Andrew Dilligan re1eats the allegations in his &olu n in the 'ail on Sunday on +une ', gi!ing ore details of the se&ret eeting at a &entral London hotel with his sour&e. K4e started off by oaning about the railways... after about half an hour Iafter so e &on!ersation?J the story e ergeIedJ that would do inate the headlines IA days laterJ for H> hours... ruin Tony 2lair"s 2asra away day Ithat day as wellJ...K"*G

that sa e arti&le again then,

*** And, so now, fair 1lay, as the Cnglish say regards this. :n and on with this transfor 1hraseology of &ourse, but lets now, underline, unders&ore this &on!ersationalis as1e&t in here now as well then. @ee s fair. :n with this fro our an"s a11earan&e before this %ntelligence and Security committee again now then:
IPO89J: "Y in the trans&ri1t of Dilligan"s ( in the final seg ent he said the words of his sour&e were that it was transfor ed in a week before it was 1ublished to ake it Zse5ier", that didn"t &o e fro you then? %F KCLLM: The word Ztransfor ed" is not so ething that would ha!e o&&urred to e in ter s of the do&u ent, first of all 8 had not seen the earlier drafts of it, so 8 wouldn"t know whether it had been transfor ed or not, the do&u ent itself is a !ery sober, well written, there is no e oti!e language in it, it"s fa&tual, 8 don"t see it as being Ztransfor ed" .

54 htt1:;;www.1ubli&ations.1arlia
55 8bid:;1a;& ,--,-.;& sele&t;& faff;u&'-,*(i;u&'-,*-,.ht

*G htt1:;;; edia;,--.;/ul;,,; ailonsunday.ira$dossier

E8)3ACL EATC@: 2ut you wouldn"t des&ribe it as Zse5y"? Page ,A of .. %F KCLLM: 8 think the Zforty(fi!e that that would be the &ase. +AEC@ AF2OT39:T: 2ut Zse5ier" is that a word you would use? %FKCLLM: 8t is a word 8 would use, 8 use it on o&&asions. +AEC@ AF2OT39:T: 8s it a word you did use? %F KCLLM: 8 &annot re&all on that o&&asion. +AEC@ AF2OT39:T: 2ut you %F KCLLM: 8t"s 1ossible, yes. ALA9 2C8T3: 4hat were the words that yours? %F KCLLM: 4hi&h $uotation are we talking about? ALA9 2C8T3: Mou said when you read the trans&ri1t again you said you re&ognised it . %F KCLLM: 8t was the .-[. +:M)C PO89 : 2ut in the trans&ri1t Dilligan also said that the words of his sour&e says that it was Ztransfor ed" Idid he? 2eforeJ in your answer you see &learly that that did not &o e fro you. e.*A %F KCLLM: 8 don"t belie!e it &a e fro to ha!e indi&ated !ery ade you re&ognise the $uotation as being ight ha!e done? inutes" for i 1a&t is the only. that"s the only bit

Last here, %r Kelly, there, finished, saying, through his ba&kground, he found hi self in a strange 1osition as well at ti es:
P'AG Er Po1e: 4hen you et Er Dilligan on ,A Eay did you feel at the ti e that you were doing anything untoward, that you were brea&hing the &onfiden&e that is e51e&ted of you within your /ob? %r Kelly: 9o. 8 think it has been agreed by the Einistry of %efen&e there was no se&urity brea&h in!ol!ed in the intera&tions 8 had. P'AA Er Po1e: %o you think, in your e51erien&e, that there is a wides1read &ulture in the Eo% and, 1erha1s, in the intelligen&e and se&urity ser!i&es of 1eo1le s1eaking in an unoffi&ial &a1a&ity to /ournalists? )ertainly the i 1ression 8 got fro Er Dilligan was that that was a wides1read &ulture that /ournalists would ha!e a nu ber of &onta&ts in the Eo% or in the se&urity ser!i&es. 8s that your e51erien&e? %r Kelly: 8t is not y e51erien&e but 8 think you ha!e to re&ognise that 8 ha!e a strange ba&kground in the sense that 8 o1erated for ten years internationally intera&ting with the international 1ress and was well(known to the 1ress and had $uite a lot of &onta&t. 8 think 8 a so ewhat unusual in ter s of the 1eo1le who ha!e an interest in that situation..." *>

They belie!ed hi . 4hy wouldn"t you, at that 1oint. And, as1e&ts of that, sit right in this, we think still. Fair 1lay or what then? And now what 3utton &a e out with finally as well, finally, as he &a e to regard all this then. First 1rin&i1les, a noted belief, 1ra&tise of 2lair"s, when addressing &o 1le5 $uestions, he has said *<, as well:
*A htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'**-;htt1:;;www.the(hutton( in$;&ontent;is&;is&N'*.1df *> 8bid. 59 3is biogra1hy, ony 0lair$ A 2ourney (,-'-).

"UThe dossier was 1re1ared and drafted by a s all tea of the assess ent staff of the +8). Er +ohn @&arlett, the &hair an of the +8), had the o!erall res1onsibility for the drafting of the dossier. The H*( inutes &lai was based on a re1ort whi&h was re&ei!ed by the @8@ fro a sour&e whi&h that ser!i&e regarded as reliable Iat that ti eJ. Therefore, whether or not at so e ti e in the future the re1ort on whi&h the H*( inute &lai was based on is shown to be unreliable, the allegation re1orted by Er Dilligan on ,< Eay ,--. that the go!ern ent 1robably knew that the H*( inute &lai was wrong before the go!ern ent de&ided to 1ut it in the dossier was an allegation whi&h was unfounded... "As the dossier was one to be 1resented to, and read by, Parlia ent, and the 1ubli&, and was not an intelligen&e assess ent to be &onsidered only by the go!ern ent, 8 do not &onsider that it was i 1ro1er for Er @&arlett and the +8) to take into a&&ount suggestions as to drafting ade by '- %owning @treet and to ado1t these suggestions if they were &onsistent with the intelligen&e a!ailable to the +8)..."G-

The intelligen&e a!ailable at that ti e, the key e51ression there, the go!ern ent entitled to in&lude that as well, their 1rerogati!e to as well, and fair enough that as well, at the risk of so e ba&k &hat on that, said anyway, on this day. *** 4hat the 22) ne!er did ha!e, unfortunately for so e of the , was an honest enough story, whi&h was why they wanted to "transfor &ould, the sel!es, fro the debate" 7 o!e on a little if they o!e on a the original story... All they had if they &ouldn"t

little was that as %r Kelly had talked to 4atts (they had this ta1ed)6 ergo, then they thought they &ould &ontinue to say that he did say what we say he said to Dilligan then... 9ot good enough though, a long bow, so e huffing and bluffing there. For 2lair, the story, it si 1ly &ould not stand, it would ha!e been bad for as they had foreseen their end $uite early on, we"d say, no anyway, not really= *** 4hat we would say now is that our an ne!er saw hi self as a whistle(blower either ore like /ust that really. 8n ittee as well, that that was orale. This led to the 22)"s )hair an Da!yn %a!ies and its dire&tor(general, Dreg %yke bowing out finally, atter that 2lair said they needn#t ha!e, resigned. That a load of hy1e as well, really, "in(ty1e". 9ot the end

now. That so e wistfulness on the 1art of another, others. These &on!ersations (key now?), with Dilligan and 4atts, with others as well, sound the loo1 and kee1ing in the loo1, ne!er an"s 1art. 8n fa&t %r Kelly said as why he was interested in sounds, too 1at though, we u&h u&h to the FA) &o ore than that to any of this on our

eeting with Dilligan again hi self (below). @ounded, ight su11ose...

Though re&i1ro&ity is the ter , isn"t it (?), that anthro1ologists use for this ty1e of a&t.
G- Fefer to, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1. A.

4hy e!en Fufford, ha!ing tagged hi that in$uiry againG').G, @trange ends

so (ha!ing $uoted hi , the first to do so), why

ystified hi , see ed a strange thing to do, as well? (Fead 2os&h, A:,,, 3utton

*** Too 1at this &on!ersationalist as1e&t 1erha1s, but this is what our anyway ( this fro infinitu this FA) &o ittee 3utton e!iden&e again, and in this %r Kelly e 1hasises the ter hi self, key, 1erha1s, again (?): an did say on this

eeting again, the day before the ne5t, fro &on!ersation, ad

"%r Kelly: The out&o e of the first eeting 8 had with hi IDilliganJ in February was that he would 1ro!ide e with feedba&k fro his !isit to 8ra$, sin&e 8 a interested in 8ra$, interested in other 1eo1le"s 1ers1e&ti!es on 8ra$ and the 1ro&ess. That was the reason for eeting with hi , to get feedba&k on that !isit. P*' Er :lner: 4as this not a two(way 1ro&ess, that you wanted also to &o uni&ate other things to Er Dilligan? %r Kelly: 9o. P*, Er :lner: 8t was si 1ly a /ournalist fishing for infor ation that you had got and you wanted to gi!e to hi ? %r Kelly: 9o, it was an o&&asion on whi&h 8 e51e&ted to get infor ation about 8ra$, about so e of the 1ersonalities that he either had en&ountered or atte 1ted to en&ounter, his e51erien&es during the war itself and the e51erien&es he had with 8ra$i inders when he was a&ting as a /ournalist before the war. P*. Er :lner: :b!iously you ha!e read Er Dilligan"s a&&ounts of the eeting, in&luding the e!iden&e that he ga!e to this )o ittee. 8s there anything in Er Dilligan"s a&&ounts that you dis1ute? %r Kelly: 8 think you would ha!e to ask e the s1e&ifi& $uestion. P*H Er :lner: Mou ha!e ob!iously read it. %r Kelly: 8 ha!e read it. P** Er :lner: 8s there anything there that suggests Er Dilligan was 1erha1s being &areful with the truth? %r Kelly: 8t is not a fa&tual re&ord of y intera&tion with hi , the &hara&ter of it, whi&h is a&tually diffi&ult to dis&ern fro the a&&ount that is 1resented there. 8t is not one that 8 re&ognise as being &on!ersations 8 had with hi . There was one 1art of it whi&h alerted e to that, whi&h was the &o ent about the .- 1er &ent 1robability of 8ra$ a&tually 1ossessing &he i&al wea1ons, that is the sort of thing 8 ight ha!e said to hi . P*G Er :lner: Feally Er Dilligan"s story was basi&ally about drafts of dossiers being &hanged, being Kse5ed(u1K. %id you infer to Er Dilligan in any way, sha1e or for that he ight ha!e isre1resented what you said? %r Kelly: Ey &on!ersation with hi was 1ri arily about 8ra$, about his e51erien&es in 8ra$ and the &onse$uen&es of the war, whi&h was the failure to use wea1ons of ass destru&tion during the war and the failure by Eay ,, to find su&h wea1ons. That was the 1ri ary &on!ersation that 8 had with hi ..."G. *** Ei5, now, 8nstead.
G' htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'*HG;htt1:;;www.the(hutton( in$;&ontent;trans&ri1ts;hearing( G, To be fair here to Fufford, 1erha1s, he didn"t see think this su&h a ste1, out (sear&h Fufford, e!iden&e, 3utton in$uiry as well... htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'*HG;htt1:;;www.the(hutton(in$;


3utton in$iry, htt1:;;www.1ubli&ations.1arlia;1a;& ,--,-.;& sele&t;& faff;u&'-,*( i;u&'-,*-,.ht .

There, we ho1e we ha!en"t blunted our 1oint by &onstantly adding you still need the raw aterials to i5 the

ore and that into the


2ut, a further 1oint we would like to add now is ( that while nothing well(1ointed is e!er wasted, ortar with, to get the right &onsisten&y, that ulti ately of benefit to us all, a&&ording to Diddens before (his wall, also), anyway... And yes too 1at that 1erha1s, but 1erha1s we &an get further with this ter instead, that a ter re&i1ro&ity now

that so&ial anthro1ologists use to des&ribe the study of this 7 of how ost basi& le!el... ight re&i1ro&ate towards others

so&ieties and tribes re&i1ro&ate goods and ser!i&es, said to be able to hel1 us understand hu an relationshi1s, how they work, at the

There are other for s as well, su&h as " oral" when 1ersons along the lines of what they think is

orally a11ro1riate, har ful e!en. ore

And there is the "balan&ed" for , when the relationshi1 between the two "e5&hanges" is infor al and the e51e&tation of return ay not ha!e a s1e&ifi& ti e(fra e.

And breaking down balan&ed we ha!e negati!e and 1ositi!e as1e&ts of this as well now ( with the 1ositi!e the in&lination is; would be, to gi!e ba&k in a &o(o1erati!e any gain, aterial or otherwise.GH anner6 with the negati!e the in&lination is; would be, to "get ba&k" at so eone, but that with no e51e&tation of

8n this instan&e, &ase if you like, that re&i1ro&ity was at 1lay &ould ha!e been e!iden&ed at least a little by %r Kelly"s e51lanation to this FA) &o ittee again then, fro the re&ord, /ust before we got into this &on!ersationalist as1e&t at 1lay last there. PH' )hair an: 4hat did you think the oti!es were of Er Dilligan and others in seeking to &onta&t you? %r Kelly: Are we talking s1e&ifi&ally of Er Dilligan? PH, )hair an: Mes. %r Kelly: The a11roa&h by Er Dilligan was to &onsult with e before his !isit to 8ra$ as a broad&aster. 3e wished to know &ertain as1e&ts of 8ra$, the O9E:08) ins1e&tion 1ro&ess, so e of the 1ersonalities that are asso&iated with the 1rogra e should he en&ounter the , so e of the sites that are in!ol!ed in the 1rogra e. Mou ay re e ber that /ust before the war the 8ra$i Do!ern ent was in!iting /ournalists to !isit the sites so they &ould see, a&&ording to 8ra$i &lai s, that there was no illi&it a&ti!ity o&&urring..." G*

And in return, %r Kelly was saying, they

et again. A stout defen&e.

And yes, that, but 1erha1s that a little too 1at also. 2ut then we do ha!e an "unbalan&ed" for of this (re&i1ro&ity), to o!e us on a little if we &an be o!ed (1ardon us), this as e!iden&ed by 2os&h, 3utton e!iden&e, yet again:
64 htt1:;;www.ehow.&o ;fa&tsNG'A''AGNre&i1ro&ity( l.

65 http://www.publications.parliament.u /pa/cm200203/cmselect/cm!a!!/uc1025"i/uc102502.htm

Hearing Transcripts ' , . H Thursday, Hth @e1te ber ,--. ('-..- a ) EF@ :L808A 2:@)3 (&alled) C5a ined by EF K9:\...

H* 'G 'A '> '< ,,' ,, ,. ,H ,* P. :n 'Ath +uly, Thursday, did you talk to hi that day? A. Mes. 3e tele1honed e about id orning. 8 think it was around '-.H* or so, but the tele1hone re&ords ay show e 1erha1s. And he tele1honed e be&ause he was 1re1aring a list of /ournalists, whi&h he had to do for the Foreign Affairs )o ittee. And he asked e to hel1 hi with the na e of a /ournalist that he thought 8 would know. 8t was so eone he et a long ti e ago and had o!ed on. 8 was able to hel1 hi with that na e. 3e was telling e he was 1re1aring a list. 3e see ed in

HG ' a $uandary be&ause he says: well (( we were talking , about this, and he said: well, 8 think 8 a /ust going . to ention all of the . 8t was a tone of !oi&e 8 ne!er H really heard hi s1eak about. * P. 4hat was that tone of !oi&e? G A. 8t was kind of like a s1ite or re!engefulness: 8 a /ust A going to list the all, kind of thing. 8 ne!er heard > hi be like that. Al ost i ediately he would &all ba&k < and in a atter of se&onds he then &a e ba&k and he '- says: but (( then he said: but not all of those would be '' rele!ant to the (( ', P. The $uestion? '. A. The $uestion that he had to deal with. 'H L:F% 3OTT:9: @orry, did he tele1hone you ba&k again or is '* this the sa e (( 'G A. The sa e &on!ersation. 8 a saying in the senten&e 'A where he e51ressed this unusual feeling, in a few '> se&onds he &hanged (( he see ed to ha!e &o e away fro '< it. :f &ourse, 8 a (( that is the (( 8 felt that at ,- the ti e, but in light of so e of the e!iden&e gi!en by ,' the 1rofessor se!eral days ago, this also heightened ,, e (( heightened y attention to it.GG

"Onbalan&ed" that definitely, a "negati!e" for " aterial or otherwise" fro

of re&i1ro&ity, as we know it now, as we

ha!e res1e&tfully sub itted already 7 this in that there would ha!e been no gain, that a&tion, nor would any san&tion that would affe&t anyone else, follow su&h a dis&losure either. 2os&h alerted then, to what though, and by the 1rofessor"s e!iden&e as well? And there had been no sign of de1ressi!e illness, or of 1sy&hiatri& &o 1laint, 3awton had e!iden&ed fro notion that our asking round. 3e had gone into all the "ins" and "outs" of why a 1erson before, to the fore) then, this an would ha!e been "filled with a 1rofound sense of ho1elessness" ight? 3e had offered, in hindsight (so ething fro

GG htt1:;;webar&hi!e.nationalar&hi!es.go!.uk;,--<-',>,,'**-;htt1:;;www.the(hutton(

in$;&ontent;trans&ri1ts;hearing( .

then, and then added "/ob" to that, whi&h by no

eans was ne&essarily under threat?

@o ething else here then, 2os&h alerted to it also, 3awton did it, alerted 2os&h to so ething else that is always there, all about us, yet only di ly 1er&ei!ed, o entarily, by so e, ne!er o ent to o ent, e!er, by anyone. These things, this, we take for granted, but they aren"t granted at all. 4e"!e worked for the , as they work for us as well. And as they do, so long as they do (we &an go on, we know...). Another way now, instead then. 3ow i 1ortant were these relationshi1s, threatened, to our an then, at that 1oint, at any 1oint at all then? 4ell not before then, and all abo!e on till ention of his before): was well then, we &an take that as so. 2os&h again, fro getting ba&k to work again "if" (as fro

",, Y And he was not ,. sure what to do be&ause not all the /ournalists that he ,H was listing would ne&essarily be rele!ant to the ,* $uestion that he had to answer. And 8 suggested: well, HA ' why do you not /ust add a senten&e at the botto ? , EF K9:\: @aying? . A. @aying so ething to the effe&t that if any (( so that he H &ould say to /ournalists: if they saw the list, saw * their na e on it and were &on&erned why their na e was G on there, then 8 said: you &ould always say you had A written a senten&e $ualifying their na es, you know, > that not (( whi&h he &ould say: well, not all of the < abo!e /ournalists were rele!ant to this $uestion or '- so ething to that effe&t. '' P. %id you ha!e any further &on!ersations with %r Kelly? ', A. Mes. Again, 8 thought (( 8 wanted to get hi to talk '. about 8ra$ (( no, sorry, he entioned that the Eo% had 'H asked hi to go out to 8ra$ the ne5t day..."GA

These relationshi1s, that the threat then, to hi , and that by his own hand 1ossibly if he didn"t wat&h out? 8rrational, definitely, and e!en now he i agined so e ongoing relationshi1 there, &ontinuing, or was that being realisti& now then? And if not, what then, how &aught u1 in this then, was our re uneration, for of &o 1ensation at stake then, instead? an, hadn"t been taking of

oney, no one has e!er suggested that (not 2rit 1ress e!en, yet), so e other for

* Cnds.

67 #bi$

one has e!er suggested that (not 2rit 1ress e!en, yet), so e other for re uneration, for * Cnds. G starts of &o 1ensation at stake then, instead?



an" (%urkhei

su11osedG>), "su1eri 1oses hi self u1on 1hysi&al

an. @o&ial

an ne&essarily 1resu11oses a so&iety whi&h he e51resses or ser!es. 8f this dissol!es, if we &an no longer feel it in e5isten&e and a&tion about and abo!e us, whate!er is so&ial in us is de1ri!ed of all ob/e&ti!e foundation... Thus we are bereft of reasons for e5isten&e: for the only life to whi&h we &ould &ling no longer &orres1onds to anything a&tual6 the only e5isten&e still based u1on reality no longer there is nothing in e 1tiness..." That would also we know hi ean, then, that %urkhei 1resu11osed a ti e before so&ial an as eets our needs... @o lose the sel!es ore for our efforts to lay hold of, and we feel the

now as well then? And yes, he did, finally, in his work, he #lementary a5i sits.

&orms of the 3eligious "ife ('<',). And yet e!en before then these ideas had infor ed his earlier work, he !ivision of "abour ('><.), wherein the abo!e 8n order that we

ight a11ly this work, these ideas, for our 1ur1oses as well then, we Anthony (2aron) Diddens, ore well before), Capitalism and 'odern Social heory$

a&knowledge here that we are 1ara1hrasing fro known te5t (than his &riti&al intro, fro

An Analysis of the (ritings of 'ar41 !urkheim and 'a4 (eber ('<A'), substantially as well then. Though ob!iously, as we ha!e our own 1ur1oses here, our own way of 1utting things, that would be allowed, generally, anyway. 8t would be agreed, we ho1e, that a disordered state of ind is essentially an to others as well a5i

e51lanation, at a &ertain 1oint, for an a&t su&h as self har , har then, whi&h while it

then. 3ere we would like to rea&h so e further understanding of the abo!e

ight sound right, still stands on its own, /ust 1ut like that.

8ts but left to add to that, that %urkhei , while often in argu ent, so to s1eak, with &onte 1oraries (1ersons as interested as hi self in modernity, as so&iologist"s 1ut that, our odern day state, states), is also said (Diddens" says so), to ha!e been hea!ily influen&ed by, or interested in anyway, the work of early anthro1ologists as well. And that, fa&tor, suits our 1ur1ose /ust as well. ***
68 2eginning of this.

8n the history of hu an thought, %urkhei

thought, there was nothing so o11osed as

the idea that the world &ould be s1lit so &o 1letely into two ( into a &on&ern with the aterial (our earthly &on&erns, &onditions), and the di!ine (so ething uni!ersal, su1ernatural), and that su&h notions &ould then e5ist side by side also... %efining this "other" then, the "s1e&ial &hara&ter" of the "sa&red", %urkhei that, sur ised

"Y surrounded by ritual 1res&ri1tions and 1rohibitions whi&h enfor&e this se1aration... a religion is ne!er si 1ly a set of beliefs" anyway. This way %urkhei rea&hes his definition of religion: as, "a unified (solidaire) syste of beliefs and 1ra&tises relati!e to sa&red things... beliefs and 1ra&tises whi&h unite into a single oral &o unity &alled a &hur&h Ihe eant broadlyJ all those who adhere to the ."G<


was also saying, we belie!e, and as in this


abo!e, that these beliefs an he talks of ost basi& of

and 1ra&tises &a e first as well then 7 well first before this so&ial

anyway. 2efore that we would ha!e essentially been alone, getting along /ust, about, beings, likely in fa ily siBed grou1s, fore ost &on&erned, daily, with the other grou1s and so&ially at that, %urkhei su11osed, as well then? needs, fending for oursel!es then basi&ally, then &o bining at ti es of less want with

To ba&k that u1 (he did this later, though these ideas infor ed his earlier work), %urkhei today,"

had a grou1 in

ind then, a grou1 that had long held on to an established ost 1ri iti!e religion known

set of beliefs, 1ra&tises as well then ( the, "si 1lest and definition (broad). *** First, before this, why did %urkhei begin with this), %urkhei

he said then, "Australian tote is ". Further ore this too was a religion by his

feel he needed to ba&k that u1 then? 4ell (we"ll

"relied" (Diddens), on a writer, @&haffle A', to begin with, who

re/e&ted a &on&e1t of the indi!idual in "so&iety" seen as freer and ha11ier than when bonded to so&iety (that a &on&e1t of Fousseau"s 7 the ha11y nati!e wants nothing, so ething like that). ":n the &ontrary (Diddens; @&haffle here): "C!erything that than the le!el of ani al e5isten&e is deri!ed fro re o!ed at the sa e ti e all that te&hnologi&al wealth of so&iety. 8f this be re o!ed fro akes hu an life higher

the a&&u ulated &ultural and an, "then you will ha!e

akes us truly hu an Ias wellJ"." This (Diddens),

&ould easily be ba&ked u1 by referen&e to "language Ilanguages differing diale&ts

G< Capitalism and 'odern Social heory$ An Analysis of the (ritings of 'ar41 !urkheim and 'a4 (eber ('<A'), 1, '-A. A- 8bid.


Albert Cberhard Friedri&h @&h]ffle ('>.'7'<-.), a Der an so&iologist, 1oliti&al e&ono ist, and

news1a1er editor.

indi&ate differing so&ial ba&kgrounds we"d note as wellJ, e5isting...

oney" A, as well, these 1re(

Ear5 (this an aside), 1ut forwards so ething like that as well 7 that we would only be free in our ani al fun&tions if &hained to industry, so ething like that... but then he dis&arded it? 9ot original enough he ay ha!e worried, nothing e!er ade of that, by hi , after that. :n his own tra&k, we know, though under the influen&e of %arwin A. on&e it is said as well( that he wrote to hi offering to dedi&ate the first !olu e of Capital (first 1ublished in Der an, '>GA), to hi . 2ut this was de&lined.AH This sort of thought, all of it, thought i 1ortant anyway, a de!elo1 ent, at the sa e ti e @&haffle was ha!ing a dig at so&iology, its origins as well, 1erha1s, suggesting then, 1erha1s, that that sort of s&ien&e wasn"t it? %urkhei ay well ha!e thought that that dire&tion ight be a bit e5tre e as well ight be ore of a Der an thing anyway,

though ( after disse&ting deter ined theories su&h as that laws of e&ono i&s would a11ly regardless of whether or not "nations" or "states" e!en "e5isted" Iso ewhat esoteri&, infe&ting thought, %urkhei ight ha!e though?J, su11osing "only the 1resen&e of indi!iduals who e5&hange their 1rodu&ts..." ( then &o ing out with so ething like this hi self: That, "the work of the Der an authors has shown that it is funda entally reality..="A* %urkhei did like one 4undt though, another Der an thinker, his work #thik, a basi& istaken to 1ro&eed in IthatJ way, as if hu an life &ould be redu&ed to a5i s. Father we ust begin with a few intelle&tually for ulated (dedu&ti!e)

&ontribution of 4undt"s being to ha!e shown, "the basi& signifi&an&e of religious institutions in so&iety 7 ha!ing shown that, "1ri iti!e religions &ontain two sorts of interrelated 1heno ena: a set of " eta1hysi&al Iwithout &ondu&t and aterial for or substan&eJ s1e&ulations on the nature and order of things" on the one hand I6J and rules of oral dis&i1line on the other... through 1ro!iding ideals to be stri!en for, aking so&ial unity."AG religion is a for&e for

72 Capitalism and 'odern Social heory$ An Analysis of the (ritings of 'ar41 !urkheim and 'a4 (eber
('<A'), 1, GA. 73 )harles Fobert %arwin ('>-<7'>>,), Cnglish, naturalist ( 1ublished his theory of e!olution, trans utation, with "&o 1elling e!iden&e" in his '>*< book, On the Origin of Species, o!er&o ing earlier re/e&tion of his ideas then, ha!ing &on!in&ingly 1ut his &ase then.

AH Capitalism and 'odern Social heory$ An Analysis of the (ritings of 'ar41 !urkheim and 'a4 (eber
('<A'), footnote H, 1. GG. 75 #bi$ 69. AG 8bid A-.

A &riti&is

of 4undt though(there had to be one), was that 4undt had failed, though, aking so&ial unity, but for there to be so&ial unity there was an ight differ in

to "1er&ei!e" there was a dual &hara&ter here 7 sure the 1ositi!e attra&tion to an ideal was a for&e for ight be obligatory side to the deal as well then, another unintelligible for&e o1erating AA (whi&h ade intelligible by noting 1arti&ular 1heno enon as they differing s1heres). As in nowadays %urkhei would say that religious senti ents, senti ent 1er se, ha!e

transfor ed into for s of " oral authority". Further that this authority has su&h 1ower as was bestowed it ba&k then still 7 well not so strongly a&tually, but strong enough still, anyway, to be seen (that so&iologies real business as well). 2a&k to this otenism then, the origin (?), of this, before we di!erged there. Features of that, whi&h still stand out, being the Eayan ruins, their sy bolis sur!i!ing, the 9orth A eri&an &ir&ular dan&es as well, around their 1oles, their tote s, hen&e the origin of this ter , those dan&es still featuring to this day. A> (An a1t e5a 1le that as well then, for another day). This defer ent to the su1ernatural, to known by the, "na e of a oral 1ower now as well, then? "A s1e&ifi&

feature" in the instan&e of this Australian so&iety, then, is that ea&h &lan grou1 is aterial ob/e&t," this a totem. This ob/e&t, further, is "belie!ed" to ha!e !ery s1e&ial 1ro1erties A<, an e bodi ent of so e su1ernatural for&e o1erating around "the sel!es". 3owe!er, the sa&red rele!an&e of su&h ob/e&ts is only a11arent at ti es of religious obser!an&e, now and then. :therwise these are /ust ordinary earthly ob/e&ts, and &an be anything at hand. That this &an be anything at hand e51lains their differen&e; rele!an&e also. For the ob/e&t (of one grou1), would be a &o on sight to the only, relating we ight su11ose to a 1arti&ular area then, to a 1arti&ular ode of subsisten&e as well then.

Further, not only would so e &lan grou1 allow the sel!es to be known as (&alled) an ob/e&t"s na e, ea&h 1erson bears that na e as well. That to signify that he; she

AA 8bid. A> This ter , totem, &an first be tra&ed ba&k to 9orth A eri&a, about '-,--- years ago, at about the sa e ti e there a11ears e!iden&e of far ing of a sort in the 9ear Cast, the 9eolithi& (food 1rodu&ing) 1eriod, this is &alled. The 9orth A eri&an 8ndians also arri!ed in the A eri&as about then, e anating out of Afri&a, Curo1e, Asia, rea&hing and &rossing an i&e age land bridge, also known to ha!e been there about '-,--- years ago, s1reading e!entually right down through the A eri&as. A< 8bid, Diddens, 1.'->.

shares in the religiosity of the tote . And there"s also the re1resentation of this ob/e&t whi&h they &arry about the sel!es as well then? The &on&lusion, after that: That, "no one of the three sorts of sa&red ob/e&ts Ithe tote 6 the e bers of the &lan6 its e ble J deri!es its sa&red &hara&ter fro a for&e whi&h e bra&es the either of the others, sin&e they all share a &o &hara&ter e anates fro on religiosity." Therefore: "Their sa&red all IgenerallyJ, a for&e whi&h the " generally. >ust be a sour&e to itself ( ore sa&red than utual e51ression of

they all 1artially share in, but whi&h is nonetheless se1arate fro 8n order then, to dis&o!er the sour&e of this general religion, there oreo!er, "the re1resentation of the tote the ob/e&t itself"6 1ro!ing that "the tote so ething else">' ( what else &ould this be? is usually regarded as is abo!e all a sy bol, a

this general energy as well then? As it is not, &ouldn"t be, the a&tual tote

For %urkhei , that ends u1 with religious senti ent &o(/oined with religious sy bolis ( "&reated and re&reated in ItheJ &ere onial". The Australian so&ieties 1ass through alternate &y&les, in one of whi&h kinshi1 grou1s li!e se1arately, gi!ing o!er the whole of its a&ti!ity to e&ono i& ends, and in the other of whi&h as short as a few days or ay last se!eral e bers of &lans or ay be 1hratries Irelated &lan grou1sJ asse ble together for a definite 1eriod (whi&h

onths). This latter 1hase... an o&&asion for

1ubli& &ere onial, whi&h usually has a highly intense and e otional &hara&ter." >, 8n these &ere onials then, a&&ording to %urkhei , for&e greater than the sel!es IthisJ, whi&h results fro en would feel, "o!er1owered by a the &olle&ti!e effer!es&en&e of

the o&&asion. The indi!idual is &on!eyed into a world whi&h a11ears to be utterly different to that of the e!eryday... Awareness of the di!ine is born out of this &olle&ti!e fer ent, and so is the &on&e1tion of its se1arateness fro , and its su1eriority to, the e!eryday world of the profane I%urkhei "s ter Take all that away and we for thisJ.">.

ight su11ose oursel!es now that we"d be ba&k to s$uare

one as well then. 4ith nothing to /u 1 u1 and down about, to shout about either. And then with no one about to do it with, we would lose oursel!es as well. All this now would ha!e been lost.

>>' >, >.

8bid: 11, '->6'-<. 8bid, 1. '-< 'bid: 1, ''8bid: 1,''-.

That we aren"t s1eaks of that as well then. For e!en if ea&h grou1, any, had for ed so e idea of what they were all about, without so ething like that, any idea of what they were all about, would ha!e si 1ly /ust died out. There would, e!en now, be e 1tiness6 "nothing ore Ithan beforeJ for our efforts to lay hold of..."

3a!ing 1re(su11osed a ti e before now, %urkhei also thought about why the world, odern life then? so &onstru&ted, didn"t &o 1letely die out with the infringe ent of

The answer to that, of &ourse, is that it wasn"t si 1ly their beliefs, 1ra&tises, ideas about the sel!es ba&k then, that only sustained so&ial unity ba&k then anyway. The first di!ision in labour, e!er, would ha!e been between 1ro&eeded beyond that for %urkhei en and wo en (was; is),

no argu ent about that. For a further growth in the di!ision of labour to ha!e i agined then that further relationshi1s " ust odes, ha!e for ed where none IhadJ 1re!iously e5isted Ias wellJ, bringing erstwhile se1arate grou1s into &onta&t" IthenJ 7 that breaking down, altering e5isting been so e &aution e5er&ised). 3a!ing allowed for "&ausal" basis towards indi!idualis , this growth in the di!ision of labour, %urkhei &o felt then that we &ould be "&ertain" after that that this growth in odern so&ieties Iwould not, ha!e notJ ne&essarily the stand1oint of Ione, 4undt oral &onsensus is indi!idualis , albeit that it &an only 1ro&eed "at the e51ense of the strength of on beliefs and senti ents, "&olla1seId thenJ into disorder, as would follow fro Iall that isJ re$uired to IforJ so&ial &ohesion." >* 2ut there had been disorder (was; is), and so, how to e51lain this? And that not at the e51ense of this (%urkhei "s), stand1oint then 7 that a strong so e so&ial order? This, it is said (Diddens" for one>G), is the ain thrust of this work, he !ivision of oral &onsensus (no longer 1ossible after so e ti e), is therefore not ne&essarily all that is re$uired for beliefs, that sti ulating e5&hange as well >H (not that there wouldn"t ne&essarily ha!e

abo!e, for instan&e, anyJ who only assu es that a strongly defined

"abour ( that in 1la&e of this 1re!ious &onsensus, albeit how you des&ribe it, ins1ired, &onstrained, instead, "the "nor al" state of the differentiated di!ision of labour Iwould beJ one of organic stability" after a ti e now6 and where there is not organic stability there is "e5ternal ine$uality" in e!iden&e then, whi&h &ould be regulated away.
>H 8bid, 1, A<. >* 8bid. >G 8bid, A,.

Onregulated relations lead to anomie1

oral disorder, that analogous as well.

Detting at others a id this realisation, it is said (by Diddens >A), that 3erbert @1en&er got a ser!e ne5t>>: "A so&iety in whi&h ea&h indi!idual solely 1ursues his own interest would disintegrate within a short s1a&e of ti e. "There is nothing less &onstant that interest. Today it unites leads to less e to you6 to orrow it akes e your ene y." This is egoism, orality, less order.><

Last word, finally, there, a 1ast referen&e to another, Tonnies <-, a Der an, a 1oint ade before hi a new ideal. 3ere, finally on this, in the these do get trend to follow... 8n his ter s, the uni!ersal ma4ime that &o ands us to de!elo1, "a&&ording to the ends us if we do, is ne!erthelessJ in i5 that i5, together with egotis , and ano ie (analogous), and also saw arise as a as well: "8n reality, &o(o1eration has its own intrinsi& orality." There,

i5ed in, u1, is this " oral a biguity" that %urkhei

s1e&ifi& $ualities whi&h IaJ 1erson has Ithat &o whi&h IalsoJ &o ight be...<, *** Fro

a general way... e!erywhere... &ontradi&ted I&ounter andedJ by the IgeneralJ 1re&e1t ands us all to follow the sa e ideal also." <' 9ow, what a

%urkhei "s work, our look at this again as well now, we think we &an &o e u1 ore our 1ersonal

with this now, whi&h o&&urs on its own really: That essentially the

>A 8bid, AA. 88 3erbert @1en&er ('>,-7'<-.), Cnglish, is ty1i&ally, though $uite wrongly, &onsidered a &oarse so&ial %arwinist Ia&&ording that hisJ, "1ra&ti&al reasoning was dee1ly flawed insofar as he 1ur1ortedly &onflated ere sur!i!ability (a natural 1ro1erty) with goodness itself (a non(natural 1ro1erty)." htt1:;;;entries;s1en&er; >< 3ere, %urkhei in&luded short(ter &ontra&ts, as 1er work, in his work, as a 1oor footing looking outwards also. <- Ferdinand T^nnies ('>**('<.G), Der an, "distinguished between two ty1es of so&ial grou1ings. De eins&haftW often translated as &o unity (or left untranslated)W refers to grou1ings based on feelings of togetherness and on utual bonds, whi&h are felt as a goal to be ke1t u1, their e bers being eans for this goal. Desells&haft W often translated as so&iety W on the other hand, refers to grou1s that are sustained by it being instru ental for their e bers" indi!idual ai s and goals. htt1:;;;wiki;FerdinandNTonnies <' 8bid, Diddens, 1, A.. 92 2rou&her, Kelly, whene!er, before, an e5a 1le of this (refer, he fuss about )elly* 2efore, 1, <>, and on) ( of so e des1air de!elo1ing regarding his own 1osition? This 1ro1osition in effe&t as e!iden&ed by that as well then? "2rou&her , attending the in$uiry, said that he had et with %r Kelly in Dene!a a little before %r Kelly"s death, and at that eeting %r Kelly had related to hi that as "he had assured his 8ra$i sour&es that there would be no war if they &o(o1erated... that a war would 1ut hi in an Ka biguousK oral 1osition." htt1:;;www.the(hutton(in$;&ontent;trans&ri1ts;hearing(trans' . Dilligan, also, des&ribed his, "sour&e as Kgently des1airingK about the way %owning @treet had e5aggerated the &ase for war (before, +uardian arti&le again, htt1:;;; edia;,--.;/ul;,,; ailonsunday.ira$dossier). Last, the 2aha"i 1osition, we"!e seen abo!e, ay not ha!e hel1ed our an one little bit, at all?

"interests" de!elo1 (this &onsidered by "interests" grou1s be&o e

any as inherently a good thing)6 the

ore our

ore &losely aligned and entwined with others with said eaning

"interests" as well then. This, then, es1e&ially for e5&e1tional 1ersons, would be what " akes" our so&ial grou1 nowadays then, what &onstitutes it ( that as a !erb, " y entire belonging" as well then:
"@o&ial an" (%urkhei su11osed), "su1eri 1oses hi self u1on 1hysi&al an. @o&ial an ne&essarily 1resu11oses a so&iety whi&h he e51resses or ser!es. 8f this dissol!es, if we &an no longer feel it in e5isten&e and a&tion about and abo!e us, whate!er is so&ial in us is de1ri!ed of all ob/e&ti!e foundation... Thus we are bereft of reasons for e5isten&e: for the only life to whi&h we &ould &ling no longer &orres1onds to anything a&tual6 the only e5isten&e still based u1on reality no longer eets our needs... @o there is nothing ore for our efforts to lay hold of, and we feel the lose the sel!es in e 1tiness..."<.

:r, we

ight add to that, of the sound of reassuring footfall, e!en now as well __ ***

%a!id )hristo1her Kelly, )ED, was laid to rest at @t Eary#s )hur&h in the :5fordshire !illage of Longworth (within sight of 3arrowdown 3ill), G August, ,--. (aged *<), <H in a not so 1ri!ate &ere ony that in&luded a se blan&e of 2aha"i, and Lord 3utton (whose in$uiry would begin the following week), attended also. And surreal this what else they were dealing with also then. And e!en now, so e, still... And surreal, yes, we"re sure, and that our ending fro before, but now a little added of ust ha!e see ed to all of the , attending, let alone his fa ily, as then, no one knew for sure,

so e &o fort to so e we ho1e now as well. For a&&ording to %urkhei , again ( whene!er we get together like that, those o&&asions, after the sho&k of loss (no inally a few days this would take, we ight add), we do find sola&e, &o fort, and we do regain a sense of se&urity again, this through e51ressions of solidarity then:
"+ust as religious senti ents of /oy be&o e raised to fe!er(1oint in he &olle&ti!e e5&itation 1rodu&ed by the &ere onial, so a "1ani& of sorrow" is de!elo1ed in ourning rituals. The effe&t of ItheseJ is to draw together the e bers of a grou1 whose solidarity has been threatened by the loss of one of its e bers. "@in&e they wee1 together, they hold to one another and the grou1 is not weakened, in s1ite of the blow whi&h has fallen it... the grou1 feels its strength gradually returning to it6 it begins to ho1e and to li!e again."


<. As before, all this. 94 And to the sound of *< &hi es of the bell also. 4ould that they would sound in that way, so eday, for all of usY