You are on page 1of 70

Stone on top of stone. Afterword: The fuss about Kelly?

Not many persons would pick up a story and treat it as we have here. But we
thought why not as we were half way there! But we were nowhere near half
way it soon became clear. While very little else did as we worked our way to
here. But here it is anyway, what we ended up with, after a short study of a
suicide. And in the end there seemed some point to this, there!
This work has its shortcomings we know. But we put this down to the difficult
subject matter as we went along, and so excused ourself. But how can you be
disappointed in yourself anyway, when you have taken on a story that most
would not have in any case! Weve been happier with other endings, other
stories though. Still happy to end it though. But how could you ever be happy
with any ending to this. But some end to some of it would be something
Our modus, as before, was as if with Alice again, and looking through the
looking glass, looking for what else could be seen. And so our beginning was
as this, or: Begin at the beginning, the King said, gravely, and go on till you
come to the end; then stop.
And that is as it was with our work preceding this (link below); and preceding
that as in, the fuss about Sutch? (And so look for this yourself).
Mark McIvor (2014).

To be, or not to be', is the well known opening phrase of a soliloquy in William Shakespeare's play,
Hamlet. In this soliloquy Hamlet wanders about the stage questioning the meaning of life, and
whether or not it is worthwhile to stay alive when life contains so many hardships. In time he
comes to the conclusion that the main reason people stay alive is due to a fear of death and
uncertainty as to what lies beyond life then. And so persons settle for the slings and arrows of
outrageous fortune, these vicissitudes as these visit us in our short life, ours a bit longer now. And
there was as wild and as ready an audience for as much wild speculation then as there still is for it
now. And indeed Shakespeare counted on this as he reset themes time and time and again then,
so as to try them out on his audiences as receptive to this, and so as so this then. The scene set,
and with Ophelia set by Polonius and Claudius to sit nearby to where Hamlet would walk, talk,
would they be able to tell from this encounter, would we, if Hamlet is beset with madness from
neglected love, was that behind this then? And it didn't seem to be so but we can still be beset
with this. And indeed that idea has been tried out with this instance again here? And so we will try
that idea again?
Our conclusion, sensibly, in the fuss about Kelly?1 before, was that this wasnt murder after all.
Going over this again, this was based essentially on the presence of the dog which led two
searchers to Dr Kelly the morning after Dr Kelly hadnt returned from his normal walk. Or should
we say from a walk as was normal for him to take? This dog, Brock, did not notice the presence of
any others near the scene as suspected by others ever since... And that is due to discrepancies
as to how he was found. Or, was he lying down or sitting up then, when he was found the morning
after? With that enough to make anyone sit up? And so there is an idea out there that this scene
was set so that the inevitable conclusions could be drawn? Ah but they haven't been... And so the
scene is well set for a little more on this?
And the scene then, if that was right, well that would mean that that would have had to have been
set during the hours of darkness after that now? But a grid search of not just the site but the
surrounds directly near where Dr Kelly was found, found nothing bent out of shape there. Or
nothing indicating the presence of other parties overnight at least with part of the surrounds
impenetrable even (as described - overall the area 'remarkable for its complete lack of human
interference' at all). And so clean yes, yet still difficult to clean at night. And so we rested there.
Yet that all seemed somewhat more of a pre-ramble after that now? And so the long way round
after that, should we take that route now? And the wrong way round some will still say after this as
well? Ah but the exercise, theres that, we got that. Nor can we can't just keep falling back on
going on about what it was not, a lot. Not a lot in that to help us out. And, there is this, that this
act occurs more often now than before?
Back then to when Kings and Queens were suspected of rather a lot, themselves, to their times
when there was less of that? But then it was still one thing to put it up, talk about it, but quite
another to turn up at court and play whatever opinion out, disguise it thinly, there... Yet you may
have got out, had you amused them enough? Yet you might not! But then you might even be
called back that you might amuse again if you can after that? And now the court of public opinion
also abounds? Might have been a time when a clean cut would have been cleaner after your first
How to draw some feeling like that out of Dr Kellys last act? Because it must have had something
to do with something like that? That quite an act!
The passion for truth is silenced by answers that have the undisputed weight of authority.''
Paul Johannes Tillich.2

the fuss about Kelly? (Part one).

'Paul Johannes Tillich (1886 1965), a German-American Christian existentialist philosopher and theologian, introduced
issues of theology and modern culture to a general readership. Allowed, with his 'method of correlation,' an approach with
which to examine the relevance of symbols of Christian revelation as answers to the problems of human existence
Existentialism being a philosophical and cultural movement whose adherents hold that we need more than the tools of
moral and scientific thinking to understand ourselves [with]. Wikipedia: On, Paul Tillich.

The impressions left over, from our work before, are that Professor Hawton's views (he was the
expert witness then, on why a person might take their own life), were based solely then on
discussions with family, friends, et al, of Dr Kellys? Yet one confidant seems to have been left out
(Bosch, we've not).
And yet that is an impossibility really, that his opinions would be based solely on those talks then...
That is, when you think about it... this being his field and so on Appropriately, given those
proceedings, what it was all about, it was right that he reflected the concerns of Dr Kelly family
foremost though, no argument with that? But still, what happened then? Is there nothing more we
can get out of this than just leave it at that? And why would we just leave it just because things
happen like tha! For now there is more of that.
This evidence of Hawton then, called to assist the Hutton inquiry, what underpinned his opinions,
could we ask even that? And he has said little since, that we know of now. Except that we know
that he was in favour of restricting co-proxamol,3 which did assist Dr Kelly then. But for all we know
he could also have been in favour of restricting this drug for some time even before then?
Obviously that might help. Not having easy means at hand, we mean, but just that.
Some time has gone by now then, and it seems nothing further has been said. The view that this
was murder still goes round and round now. That's not good then. And perhaps we could get
further with this ourselves by reminding ourselves again that Hawton's views would not have been
formed by only experience. He had expertise then. And assist he did, no argument again. That was
all he was asked to do even. It might even be asking a lot of him now, to ask more of him than that
then? Else-wise, he did say (to the Hutton inquiry), that a lay person would not have seen this
coming anyway.4 Which in a way is the same saying he might have then.
First, again then, what he did say? Enough probably, as was sufficient for each day (he appeared
twice). Here, leaving aside his concerns over this public exposure aspect of this for Dr Kelly again
(his appearance before a select committee, it being televised; yes that would have been
horrendous for him...), he also said then, that finally Dr Kelly might have felt that he might not
have been able to continue in 'his previous work role' after all that... That this then, 'would have
filled him with a profound sense of hopelessness' then...
And yet this is said with barely a hint about why that thought might have led any person to some
such self-destructive act after that? Or are we being insensitive about that? Yet still Hawton might
have been able to talk more widely about that after that... And so that might have been useful
then, to others feeling like that?
But, pulling back, things went further than that. Dr Kelly's credibility was under attack, unlike
Hawton's there! And so his job fears linked to that? Yet this was not such an undermining factor so
far as we know of from Hawton's views made plain again. But it was also left to Dr Kelly to in a
sense refute the irrefutable as well back then, to refute that the case made for war was not plain;
or prop up the government, the same...
Its a murky business some of this but we might get on some sort of track if we track back there as
well? And ask could some other dreadful thought have got in somehow after that, or at that
committee appearance by him then (and so more to come on this of course)? But there is some
basis for this even, in line with Hawton's knowledge again (and we will get to this even, after this).
But for now we will backtrack a little...
Back first then, to the heat of that moment at the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting (FAC) again.
the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). (P. 76).
Hawton, Professor Keith (2003). Psychiatrist, expert witness: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.

Televised, hot, the air-conditioning had to be turned down there, then, so softly did Dr Kelly speak
when answering questions put to him then... Could we have missed some of the other language
used there because of this then? Nor was Hawton there then, and so stuck, maybe, on the original
offence given to Dr Kelly there...
And there, before that committee, the 'eyes' were all Dr Kelly then! And here, Dr Kelly was another
who could have said so much more then... For it is so, that behind his own wavering eyes, he could
have envisioned far more than he was being asked about now. For there had been quite some a
lead up to all this, and a lot longer lead up than the 'eyes' on him were perhaps aware of even, or
even interested in then?
There, in any case, this offence was taken up instead - had he said this to Gilligan again then? Had
he said that the case for war had been 'sexed-up' again? Just this, just him? Cautioned, but, this
was just a position he said that he found himself in there now then. Or that regardless of all the
fuss, or offence given, and now this, it was all the same essentially to him this was just a position
that he 'just found [himself] to be in...'5
And, in any case, wasn't this the same position for all of them now then, come to this? And so that
a worthy repost and one that he could have stuck with, even if he'd just kept this in mind (or to
himself). And we have always thought this? Or let them prove something then or let him out of
this. And so, it seemed they did accept what he said there, and so he was out of there then, but
did, now, some other thought get in? And if so, might that be in line with anything that Hawton
might have thought then, had he been privy to more than he was then? Or was he awake to this?
And so did it strike him as something that may have struck Dr Kelly then? But if so does he keep
his thoughts to himself as maybe Dr Kelly might have then, had he got through this, saving it for
the dinner table occasionally, when it all might just sound like some spiel then now, overriding its
seriousness then... Still what grand designs are these now, instead of those?
Included, or added now, and so that we might get back to that thought ourselves again (and for
good reason, well at least some), is this next, added as we try to narrow down on some of the
principles that Hawton would ordinarily have to be aware of in all this? And you would expect some
education to come by way of some founding principles like these... And somewhere, back when, he
would have come across some of this himself then, and there is plenty, we might find, that can be
teased out of this...
'Social man [this now] superimposes himself upon physical man. Social man necessarily presupposes a
society which he expresses or serves. If this dissolves, if we can no longer feel it in existence and action
about and above us, whatever is social in us is deprived of all objective foundation... Thus we are bereft of
reasons for existence: for the only life to which we could cling no longer corresponds to anything actual; the
only existence still based upon reality no longer meets our needs... So there is nothing more for our efforts to
lay hold of, and we feel them lose themselves in emptiness...'' 6

And, that is not so far away, from what Hawton said also now - that some insecurity even, 'would
have filled him with a profound sense of hopelessness'), but it is expressed as 'emptiness' here.
And so it would be unlikely then, that Hawton wasn't in touch with at least some of the principles
that can be teased out from this then? And that is without leaving behind this idea of some other
dreadful thought getting in to our man's mind again. Which we are going to get closer to now then,
through this circuitous route we think..?
First off, again then, we should note, we suppose, that the author of this (above), didn't come out
with that to begin with, or with exactly this subject in mind himself. Rather that came out after his
interest in this had run some itself... But this was a run on from some of this, and so we wish to run
some with this ourselves...

UK Parliament, publications (15 July, 2003). Oral evidence (taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday 15 July
2003): Witness: DR DAVID KELLY, Special Adviser to the Director, Counter-proliferation and arms control, Ministry of
Defence... Examined. Oral
evidence, that committee, Q&A.159.
Durkheim, David mile. The Division of Labor in Society. Presses Universitaires De France (1893).

More generally, for now, what this writer was far more interested in, then, was with what might be
in store for all men and women, the whole of human kind even, in his time then, and that due to a
very different style of life emerging around then. Or in his times again. This time or type of new
age consequent to the industrial as well as to the French revolution as well then. And all that was
also associated with the consequent emancipatory ideals as they also emerged then. Or, put
another way, his interest then - would old habits, habitus, die hard alongside these times then?
Or, with the replacement of old ideals, older orders, what else might arise? Might it even be more
of this? He thought so. But not without his reasoning...
Finally the relevance if there is any of this, with this here now? And that as Hawton hasn't said as
much as he could have said about this sort of thing himself then. Nor anything about any
principles as they might be found to help us understand more about this, or why some opt this
way? The principles at play? Nor has there been that inquest again, another principle sidelined, the
road to obfuscation paved that way.
Grand designs again?
Charles Darwin's, On the Origin of Species... published in 1859, was probably the most influential
work of all published near that time frame we are referencing again now. Darwin's work, those
ideas, on our biological evolution, they are still pushing us on, onwards, forwards, still... 7
Still the work that could interest us equally here, is the early work on our social evolution as well
after that now? With some of this coming only a little while after all that from Darwin then as well.
And some might say that this might be a sort of counterpoint to all that now. But how to get more
out of that, some way?
Well, beginning with mile Durkheim himself perhaps now or to this early proponent of sociology
we might turn again, to this other type of study of ourselves now, or of our more social side
instead of all this biology again. And, in point of fact again, Durkheim's study on our topic (Suicide,
published 18978), is, as well, still considered a seminal work as per this new sociology as it arose
around then as well. And it is an approach as distinct as Darwin's was even (with it still being so,
we know, that Darwin has had a better run on since).
In this other work then, now (and which came out four years after the work we have drawn on first
above, and from whence we lifted the social man piece from his work The Division of Labor... out
in 1893 then), Durkheim had looked at suicide rates between Protestant and Catholic populations
in his time then (the Victorians included we imagine, well we would have at least), and found then
that they differed markedly after this... And that so with more Protestants more so inclined to take
such a step, or opt out again then, resurrecting that term for this just briefly here? And so that was
quite some finding then, from just facts lying about? And quite some act to follow, that! Even so,
we are interested enough to try and re-apply some of his thinking to this? As have 'things' changed
that much, after that.9

Charles Robert Darwin (18091882), English, naturalist - published his theory of evolution, transmutation, with
'compelling evidence' in his 1859 book, On the Origin of Species, overcoming earlier rejection of his ideas then, having
convincingly put his case then...
Durkheim, David mile. Suicide. Presses Universitaires De France (1897).
Emile Durkheim: His Life and Work (1858-1917) [Excerpt from Robert Alun Jones. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four
Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1986. Pp. 12-23.]
'David Emile Durkheim was born on April 15, 1858 in Epinal, capital town of the department of Vosges, in Lorraine. His
mother, Mlanie, was a merchant's daughter, and his father, Mose, had been rabbi of Epinal since the 1830s, and was
also Chief Rabbi of the Vosges and Haute-Marne. Emile, whose grandfather and great-grandfather had also been
rabbis, thus appeared destined for the rabbinate, and a part of his early education was spent in a rabbinical school. This
early ambition was dismissed while he was still a schoolboy, and soon after his arrival in Paris, Durkheim would break
with Judaism altogether. But he always remained the product of close-knit, orthodox Jewish family, as well as that
long-established Jewish community of Alsace-Lorraine that had been occupied by Prussian troops in 1870, and suffered
the consequent anti-Semitism of the French citizenry. Later, Durkheim would argue that the hostility of Christianity
toward Judaism had created an unusual sense of solidarity among the Jews.

But first, as part of this study back then, could such a finding, then, have been determined by any
other factors, that had to be looked at then, as well? And if so that would also be so now, we need
to know this ourselves? But, before calls like this could be made anyhow, some clarification had to
be decided upon, as to on what basis you could call such an act like this, in any case, even?
And here, for starters again, there would be a difference, he decided then, say, between a person
taking an extreme risk knowing that such an outcome might occur (a calculated act per se); and
say a person neglecting their health to that point where this might occur (or, per se, a person
beyond caring then)?
Or, it could be put, and was, that for this act to be classified as such it would have to be derived
from an observation such as the individual intended death to follow from some act then, just that!
And in most case it is like this when you get back to that. But that aside, after that, there might
still be other factors at play?
An inclination, perhaps, then, towards this act varying from country to country even? And that
regardless of any culture or religion? And well there is some of this. But not enough for this big
difference? And we adapt, don't we, wherever we settle and to conditions, as per Darwin again...
Insanity, classified as a disease, was the most usual cause advanced so as to account for suicide in
Durkheim's time again. And this, or that idea, which could almost bring you to a full stop even,
could still be further separated out though, and ably so by tackling that idea at its roots also. For
the view, that had bored its way in, was that suicide itself was simply a special form of insanity
anyway? And so suicide would simply be an 'effect' of that special form of 'insanity' then, again?
But following on from his classification (this should be limited to intent then), Durkheim then
An outstanding student at the Collge d'Epinal, Durkheim skipped two years, easily obtaining his baccalaurats in Letters
(1874) and Sciences (1875), and distinguishing himself in the Concours Gnral. Intent now on becoming a teacher,
Durkheim left Epinal for Paris to prepare for admission to the prestigious Ecole Normale Suprieure. Installed at a
pension for non-resident students, however, he became utterly miserable: his father's illness left him anxious over his
family's financial security; he was an utter provincial alone in Paris; and his intellectual predilections, already scientific
rather than literary, were ill-fitted to the study of Latin and rhetoric essential for admission to the Ecole. After failing in
his first two attempts at the entrance examination (in 1877 and 1878), Durkheim was at last admitted near the end of
Durkheim's generation at the Ecole was a particularly brilliant one, including not only the socialist Jean Jaurs, who
became Durkheim's life-long friend, but also the philosophers Henri Bergson, Bustave Belot, Edmond Goblot, Felix Rauh,
and Maurice Blondel, the psychologist Pierre Janet, the linguist Ferdinand Brunot, the historians Henri Berr and Camille
Jullian, and the geographer Lucien Gallois. Despite constant fears of failure, which plagued him throughout his life,
Durkheim became an active participant in the high-minded political and philosophical debates that characterized the
Ecole; and, like Jaurs, he was soon a staunch advocate of the republican cause, with special admiration for Lon
Gambetta, the brilliant orator and "spiritual embodiment" of the Third Republic, and the more moderate Jules Ferry,
whose anti-clerical educational reforms would soon lead to a national system of free, compulsory, secular education.
Durkheim's concerns were less political than academic, however, and while he continued to criticise the literary rather
than scientific emphasis of the Ecole, he discovered three scholars of a more congenial spirit - the philosophers Charles
Renouvier and Emile Boutroux, and the historian Numas-Denis Fustel de Coulanges.
Though ill through much of 1881-82, Durkheim successfully passed his agrgation (the competitive examination required
for admission to the teaching staff of state secondary schools, or lyces), and began teaching philosophy in 1882.
In 1882, the Faculty of Letters at Bordeaux had established France's first course in pedagogy for prospective school
teachers, and in 1884 the state had begun to support it as part of its drive for a new system of secular, republican
education. The course was first taught by Alfred Espinas, whose Les Socits animales(1877) Durkheim greatly admired,
but who was soon elevated to Dean of the Faculty. Durkheim's articles on Germany philosophy and social science had by
now caught the attention of Louis Liard, then Director of Higher Education in France. A devoted republican and
Renouvierist, Liard both resented the German pre-eminence in social science and was intrigued by Durkheim's
suggestions for the reconstruction of a secular, scientific French morality. At the instigation of Espinas and Liard,
therefore, Durkheim was appointed in 1887 as "Chargd'un Cours de Science Sociale et de Pdagogie" at Bordeaux. The
"Science Sociale" was a concession to Durkheim, and it was under this guise that sociology now officially entered the
French university system.
This appointment of a young social scientist to the predominantly humanist Faculty of Letters at Bordeaux was not
without opposition, and Durkheim exacerbated this by emphasizing the value of sociology to the more traditional
humanist disciplines of philosophy, history and law. He thus aroused (justifiable) fears of "sociological imperialism"
and unjustifiable (though understandable) fears that his particular explanations of legal and moral institutions through
reference to purely social causes undermined free will and individual moral agency...'

decided this could only be so if that type of 'insane' person limited all their actions towards just
that act then? And generally persons just don't do this! Further you could show that suicides
committed by the insane are almost always devoid of deliberation anyway then? And so you could
get past this sort of thinking, then...
Durkheim then turned his attention to the more normal psychological conditions inherent in race.
Or to the view that suicide is the consequence of inherent tendencies in a 'race' type? But that was
undermined by the enormous variations in suicide rates and types of this act observed within the
same 'race' types (and which points toward disparities in communities as well then)!
The argument that suicide might be hereditary even, Durkheim found more difficult now. But need
that have been so? For that could have been compared to any propensity in a family towards a
nervous breakdown or to insanity even. Families he left alone though? Except that he noted that in
larger families there was less of this, but this was across the board now? And so you couldn't really
just relate this to Catholics now?
To the subject of the weather next, something larger families care more about or talk more about
then now. Whatever, surely that is a factor in any case now? And well not, especially now. For while
the geographical distribution of suicides in Europe did vary according to latitude then (as now),
and thus roughly according to climate then, these variations were still better explained another
way then. As in fact it seemed the suicide rate was higher in spring and summer in any case then,
than in autumn and winter as you might expect...
Going further with that Durkheim also looked at the work of two Italian statisticians who had
concluded that perhaps there was some mechanical type influence upon ourselves as well then and so more of that due to the over-heating of cerebral functions in hotter climes then? So that
might make up for that, somehow now? And sure, this hotter weather could hence lead to some
excitability in some cases then, and hence to some danger to yourself as well? But mostly though,
suicide was preceded by at least some flatness of mood, and mostly that begins to decline in the
hotter periods as we know ourselves even now...
Taking it all in, or for inquiry, Durkheim had at his disposal many good descriptions of individual
cases as well it is said. Yet that excepted good data on suicides committed by persons generally
considered sane he found. Or, put that another way round, the quality of that data, well generally
he found that this seemed restricted to opinion by some well meaning official or other then. And so
perhaps he decided with some motivation to tidy something messy up then? Or to clear it away at
least (as with this instance again even?).
Out of this study, or that all put aside then, Durkheim then decided, in line with what he would
propose now, that there might be three classifications that could cover this act next, this act not
generally, or only, committed by the insane then. And indeed Hawton could have offered any one
of these so that we wouldn't be so much in the dark about this sort of thing ourselves? Still, we
might be able to get around this if we can get somethng out of this now ourselves?
Durkheim's least discussed third type/ or class, of suicide, first off then, now. And this type he
termed altruistic suicide again then! And this type we can follow quite easily ourselves now. As this
would follow on from the belief or conviction that self-destruction would be a proper course of
action under some proper circumstance then (and so deliberate enough for him, of course, this
would be again). And that could be as in our example from before, say again now. As in that act
committed often enough by Japanese officer classes during the Second World War and others of
course (but before10). With that act aimed to reduce shame as well. Yet, its counterpoint would be
to inspire others of course, to be brave and to face up if their time came, just as well...
The middling reason now. Or, as conversely, wartime in western types of society anyway, generally
reverses that form of suicide there. So we have Durkheim's second form of suicide then called
anomic suicide and that type would normally arise due to being left aside, or feeling irrelevant

the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). (P.87).

perhaps as to a societies concerns, no norms to cling on to. And, conversely, you get at this by
noting that during wartime there is less suicide then with that put down to more regulation then
(and so if there was more regulation in relations would there be less personal disturbance then,
Durkheim's big idea this). And, asides, there might be more of common feeling in these wartime
situations as well, such as 'we' are all up against it now (and wartime Britain would be a case, with
the bombings of London to begin with affecting morale not one bit so we are told). Taken on by
psychology anomie generally refers to the concept of alienation now. 11
Egoism now?
There is this other term now and the most discussed here and there as well now. And this terms
stands for personal excess, or this individualism as it arose sometime then, arising back then even.
And its hardly gone down now. And so back to its roots it is for us then. And, this also fits in quite
well here. But for this, his concept of egoistic suicide, Durkheim is also said12 to have returned to
concepts regarding the duality of human nature then now. Or to this old ideas again then (as in his
work again, The Division of Labor... before then. And so back to when then he had posited (as
above again), that man/ woman, was indeed double - biological and social again then now! And on
the heels of that, that does sort of follow somehow - that this social man/ woman would indeed, in
a way, be 'superimposed' upon this natural biological person as well!
This egoism then, this is complex now (pardon us). But this does first off seem worthy of mention
as per this 'case' as well now. Or, if we can say this - it being so that Durkheim found more of this
is his Protestants again then, and this he put down to them being more questioning of all things,
briefly here (thus these emancipatory ideas again can be brought back in again then, cant they be
now then?).
And in Dr Kelly's instance again then now, it has been mentioned, well quite a bit has been made
of this, that as Dr Kelly was a Baha'i himself (for some two years then), and as the Baha'i are
against suicide (as are, actually, both the Catholic and Protestant faiths 13), then this 'suicide'
couldn't have happened then, now?
But then, according to Durkheim in his work Suicide again now then there where he found
Protestants did more of this sort of thing, this might have made matters worse for Dr Kelly as well
now then? As with any belief system where there be no firmer doctrine than that you should
undertake personal inquiry (and this protestantism is aligned with this sort of thinking, and since
the Reformation we may think), well this can be tricky of course as well now, with the Baha'i
steadfast believers in something just like this'
Why then, Durkheim wondered then, would free inquiry cause more 'harm' to an individual then
now? Or, equally, 'unhappiness' even? And here we might think he had something now? For then
he decided that as free inquiry would naturally involve more reflection then, that this might be a
key to this difference then? And reflection (we know it), and Durkheim suggested this as well back
then, is involuntary then... And (we know it), it can have an edge to it, or it can be as painful
ultimately as helpful to any of our selves as well:
Yet, it, 'develops only if its development becomes imperative [again then now. Or,] that is, if certain ideas and
instinctive sentiments which have hitherto adequately guided conduct are found to have lost their efficacy


From: Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. Edited by Alan Bullock & Oliver Stallybrass, London, Fontana/ Collins
(1986): 'Anomie: Term, resurrected fro the Greek (literally without law), by the French Sociologist Emile Durkheim, to denote
that condition of society which results from the disintegration of commonly accepted 'normative' code. For Durkheim
industrial class conflict was a symptom of [this] anomie. More loosely anomie was used in the 1950s and 1960s as a
concept akin to alienation, to describe a condition where an individual had lost his [and her] traditional moorings and were
prone to psychic disorder '
Here we are relying on the work again of, Jones, Robert Alun. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications (1986).
Durkheim was interested in this religious component to our lives. His work, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life
would first appear in 1912.

[for a period then. A modern term for this might be an existential crisis then 14]...'15

And so we have something else here and that we might fit in with this instance? Though we can't
be dogmatic about this! We must step carefully ourselves with this. And so we need an instance or
a hint os dome thing to tie this in if we can here? And here we could return to Professor Hawton's
comment regarding this likely, 'dismay [for Dr Kelly] at [his] being exposed then now, and so to the
media' after this...
And obviously this would have been surprising, this attention we mean, to say the least even. But
at the other end the obvious remark after that would be that we all likely cope better when our life
remains roughly in the shape we are used to then. And certainly Dr Kelly's life got out of shape
after that, but Hawton only said he would have been dismayed, again, to extend that here.
A less obvious comment might be now though, that for there to be some balance incorporated into
our life as well now, then this would mean, necessarily, that some restraint is always being
exercised as well again... Here Durkheim found that anything unregulated might become tricky
then. Or even anything over-regulated as well? And for his prime example (he is noted for this), he
noted that while industrial and financial crises increased the suicide rates as well then (as common
sense would suggest), yet there was something else about this... For while common sense would
of course more commonly attribute more of this phenomena to a decline in economic well-being
now then yet the same increase in the suicide rate could be seen as emergent from some gain,
or out of increased prosperity as well now then? And so what of this?
Thus, Durkheim posited this:
' that with every disturbance of equilibrium [now],' even though it might generate 'greater material
comfort', there is, inherent in 'this', an increase in the 'voluntary' impulse towards [this as well then]...' 16

But this is due to this egoism (or this growing individualism?), he is saying this now then. For, with
' an animal [this duality thinking in] its needs and means are established by nature, its body, it cannot
imagine other ends. Human needs are not so limited though, they can imagine other ends, the unattainable
'No living being [is likely to ever be happy] unless its needs are sufficiently proportioned to its means; for if its
needs surpass its capacity to satisfy them, the result [then] can only be friction, pain, lack of productivity, and

Plainly, if you can inquire into anything, then you can believe anything as well, for the time being... An Existential crisis
would be described thus, and is described here (link below): 'As often provoked by a significant event in the person's life psychological trauma, marriage, separation, major loss, the death of a loved one, a life-threatening experience, a new love
partner, psychoactive drug use, adult children leaving home, reaching a personally-significant age (turning 16, turning 40,
etc.), etc. Usually, it provokes the sufferer's introspection about personal mortality, thus revealing the psychological
repression of said awareness... Peter Wessel Zapffe a Norwegian phiosopher, provided a fourfold route in his work The Last
Messiah that he believed all self-conscious beings use in order to cope with the inherent indifference and absurdity of
existence, comprising "anchoring", "isolation", "distraction", and "sublimation":
* Anchoring is the "fixation of points within, or construction of walls around, the liquid fray of consciousness". The
anchoring mechanism provides individuals with a value or an ideal that allows them to focus their attentions in a consistent
manner. Zapffe also applied the anchoring principle to society, and stated "God, the Church, the State, morality, fate, the
laws of life, the people, the future" are all examples of collective primary anchoring firmaments.
* Isolation is "a fully arbitrary dismissal from consciousness of all disturbing and destructive thought and feeling".
* Distraction occurs when "one limits attention to the critical bounds by constantly enthralling it with impressions".
Distraction focuses all of one's energy on a task or idea to prevent the mind from turning in on itself.
* Sublimation is the refocusing of energy away from negative outlets, toward positive ones. The individual distances him or
herself and looks at his or her existence from an aesthetic point of view (e.g. writers, poets, painters). Zapffe himself
pointed out that his written works were the product of sublimation... Literary examples [quoted here include Hamlet
again*]: Prince Hamlet experiences an existential crisis as a result of the death of his father. This is shown especially by
Shakespeare in the famous soliloquy which starts, "To be, or not to be: that is the question..." Other examples are Wise
Blood by Flanerry O'Connor, Franny & Zooey by J. D. Salinger, Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell...' Wikipedia: On,
Existential Crisis.
Jones, Robert Alun. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications (1986).

[in time] a general weakening of the impulse to live [after that as well then].' 18

This point is not well made perhaps now? But in smaller communities, or for the agrarian instance
now, Durkheim found that the suicide rate was lower across the land. Or, a better point? Poverty is
no great factor, predictor, either, if evenly felt across the land, he found? Or, all things being equal,
and while trials and tribulations may abound, they won't necessarily take you down. Bigger family
again, less of this, all is round.
We can't go on together [forever], with suspicious minds... Elvis.
Rounding on this inquest, that question again, there are other reasons of course, for a full inquest,
left. For after such hearings we are also supposed to be in a better position to prevent more
occurrences of this...
But it would be hard, now, just for starters on this again, to say just what we might prevent
occurring after any further understanding of this? Still this is a big stick, still, this lack of regularity
around this! Yet you'd still have to ask, after the process has been circumvented, if there'd be
much point now to any more of this?
And, some fairness left here - for if you were a betting type, this we could at least bet that if it
had ever even looked like murder, seriously, then the police would have seen to it that another
type of psychiatrist would have been called on to give evidence some time then. Someone not put
up as some think Dr Hawton might have been still? Though now, of course, other doctors are
interested in this in any case (reviewed19).
That aside back now, to that spot again, the lights on him, to this difficult position Dr Kelly was in
(above, the glare), to some other dreadful thought now then. Or to one that could have got in,
while in the full glare, a pressure thing? Or, another question what else might have taken a run
through Dr Kelly's mind at that time then or to this 'imperative' thinking again, of Durkheim's,
can that sort of thinking get in here?
For questions, others, were not just popping up around the time of that committee meeting (the
FAC again). Or not just because of what was out of the box sort of, down to Dr Kelly perhaps, the
jack... Or was that the whole point of the meeting of the committee in any case? And, well, no of
course not! Rather, controversy was over why such weapons as had been 'feared' had not been
found now? Or over why not more had been brought to bear on the invader then? Its as if, had
there been more allied forces killed, there would have been less of this questioning then? Before
then, assurances had been given, these weapons existed then. But how now was the government
handling this, they wanted to know this, wanted blood again then:
'You too Dr Kelly, is the government handling you then? Speak up man (as good as there). Then: 'This is the
high court of Parliament [highest in the land could have been added then]... 20

And so they did want to know about this now then. Or how did they get into this position they were
in now then not just him? And they'd get it out of him! And then this minister asked him, wanting
to find out: 'Are you chaff Dr Kelly, since you have so little to say now then or a 'patsy' even (or
have we been?). And this particular expression has been inferred somehow, though Nick Cohen
has him being asked exactly that!21 As good as that in any case we'd say..!
But for now, what we are sure about, is that Hawton could have said more, we have said this
before (there's no let up on that man then and perhaps we should be). But that could have been

Review, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). (P.79
Ibid, p.4. Footnote 2.
Ibid, footnote, p.4).

useful, as useful anyway, as if there had been an inquest in any case. And so what else could
Hawton have said then again? For uninformed Hawton would have been just as curious, well you'd
think so, at least, also?
The Kelly family have never thought their man was murdered. Instead they laid the blame firmly
on the proceedings that Dr Kelly was forced to attend. His first committee hearing then (FAC),15
July then. There:
' he appeared to be under severe stress, which was probably increased by the televising of the proceedings.
He spoke with a voice so soft that the air-conditioning equipment had to be turned off, even though it was
one of the hottest days of the year...'22

And at this meeting he was pressed, in none too kind a manner, as to whether or not he was chaff
again, the fall guy thrown down by the Labour government again. And that not just so to divert
attention from them. But - reading between the lines - he might also have been trying to assist the
government with Alistair Campbell's avowed intention to 'get Gilligan,' 23 to 'f..k' him even, and so
he was watching his back also then...
For Kelly, for a while there now, well he was just watching his front, and he just responded that this
was situation he just found himself to be in now then. And that due to his own honesty we know
that also now, as he had written to his line manager and alerted him to the fact that he had had an
unauthorised meeting with Gilligan before Gilligan had come out with this story of his. Yet he didn't
think he had gone as far as Gilligan might be saying said he did. If it was him? And so you can sort
of sense how Campbell might even have been further incensed then, by this claim even... Maybe
he would get even?
Two articles, published later on in the Telegraph, tend to lend support to any assertion that the
Kelly family was as concerned over how he was spoken to there, as over anything else though
(leaving that aside there):
'Dad [Dr Kelly's daughter said this] said interrogator MP was utter bastard:
By Neil Tweedie and Sandra Laville 02 Sep [sics] 2003
David Kelly was so angered by his humiliation before the Foreign Affairs committee that he was moved to
describe one of its members as "an utter bastard".
The reference was apparently aimed at Andrew Mackinlay, the Labour member of the committee who
accused the scientist of being "a fall guy" and "chaff", a decoy used to throw the MPs off course during their
investigation into events leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
Yesterday [sept 1], the Hutton Inquiry heard detailed evidence from Dr Kelly's family about the scientist's
reaction to his questioning by the committee on July 15, two days before his apparent suicide.
Rachel, his daughter, said: "He was really very, very deeply traumatised by the fact that [it] would be
televised. It was playing on his mind."
She described how the strain on the scientist had been prolonged when one of his two appearances
scheduled for that day, before the intelligence and security committee, was postponed for 24 hours.
Describing her father's reaction to the questioning, she said he had been "incredulous" at the suggestion he
was the principal source for Andrew Gilligan, the BBC journalist whose report had accused No 10 of "sexing
up" the dossier on Iraq.
"He felt he [Gilligan] had accumulated this information over time and could not understand how he could
make such forcible claims about the conversation24 they had had," she said.
Following the hearing, Miss Kelly asked her father how it had gone. She said he had found it hard to recall
conversations from weeks earlier and was "very hard on himself" about his memory failures.
"Dad said it was very, very hard. Those were his words. I got the impression the questions had been quite
tough. My own expectation of a select committee was perhaps something quite gentlemanly and, in fact,
what Dad had gone through was a real ordeal."
Her father had referred to the questioning of one MP in particular. "I was surprised. He said very quietly, with
some feeling, that this man was an utter bastard, not [because of] the questions he asked but in the manner

Wikipedia: On, David Kelly (weapons expert).

Refer to, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one).
(Footnote, p.9).
This, we feel, might need underlining.


he asked them..."'25

And Mrs Kelly, same paper, same day, added much the same:
' Mrs Kelly [at the Hutton inquiry] said her husband was "ballistic" when he learned that his appearance was
to be be televised. "He felt it would be a kind of reprimand in the public domain that was not going to be
comfortable for him."
Mrs Kelly described her husband as a shy, modest man, dedicated to his work, who believed that he could
make a small difference on the international stage. Correspondence found after his death suggested that he
was in line for a knighthood...26
Her husband looked on his ordeal in being forced into the public eye as worse than anything he had
experienced as a United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq in the 1990s and as a British inspector in the
former Soviet Union.
"I had never, in all his time in Russia and in all his trips to Iraq, where he had lots of horrors and people
pointing guns at him, I had never known him to be so unhappy. It was tangible..." 27

And, to the Hutton inquiry, Mrs Kelly added, 'that the day of her husband's appearance before the
Foreign Affairs select committee (FAC) had [also] coincided with their 36th wedding anniversary.' 28
A day, understandably, like no other up till then, yet another worse to face up to, and now this!
Another view to face up to perhaps, was that regardless, this MP (Mackinlay), was entirely within
his rights to press Dr Kelly before that committee. No shame was due him then, this system of
questioning in place for very good reason. Furthermore, Dr Kelly faced it quite well, all things
considered, he thought, and that being the case, there must have been some other torment then?
'Don't blame the MPs; they perform a crucial role,' said Simon Hoggart in the Guardian, Monday 21 July [three
days after Dr Kelly was found deceased well before the items above appeared then]:
'Among the reverberations round the terrible death of Dr David Kelly, one worrying myth seems to be
spreading that he was sent to his grave by the Commons Foreign Affairs committee. TV news [is] routinely
call[ing] it a "fierce" or "harsh" interrogation.
The bulletins endlessly repeat extracts; at the weekend one paper claimed that the scene was worse than a
fox torn apart by hounds. The impression created is that last Tuesday Dr Kelly left his session with the select
committee a broken man, a shell of himself, already headed in his mind towards that Oxfordshire copse.
What nonsense that is! I was there for the whole of the hour Dr Kelly faced the committee, and as he pushed
past me at the end to leave the hot and airless room he was smiling, recognising friends and colleagues,
clearly relieved the questioning was over, but far from shattered. I accept that proves nothing, and that there
might indeed, there must have been other causes of the turmoil in his mind.
But I cannot believe, and I do not believe, that it was the committee's questioning that pushed him to the
edge of his reason. And if people continue to claim that it was, that is an appalling slur on a perfectly decent
group of men and women, and in its way an insidious attack on the whole select committee system, a system
which now more than ever requires strengthening, not dismantling.
Time and again we are shown on television the episode where Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay calls Dr Kelly
"chaff" and suggests that he is "the fall guy". It looks accusatory and angry, and Mr Mackinlay, no doubt
horrified by the impression its constant repetition must have created, has apologised to Dr Kelly's family.
It is a pity he had to do so. For one thing, it was clear, if you heard the whole question, that he was not
attacking Dr Kelly, but the Ministry of Defence and the government for using him as a decoy. Mr Mackinlay is
one of the best of the Labour rebels. He is excitable, and he never knowingly understates a case. I thought he
was a little rough when he evoked "the high court of parliament". But it was just one slip. Mr Mackinlay is
tough and brave and determined and was asking awkward questions of the government when Tony Blair still
seemed unassailable. A free parliament needs men like him, and it needs them to speak out more, not sit
with their lips buttoned.
As for the rest of the committee well, they were probing, but as the session continued they were evidently
moving round to support of Dr Kelly. Their inevitable suspicion that he was underplaying the amount of

The Telegraph, London (2003). 'Dad said interrogator MP was utter bastard.'
The Telegraph, London (2003). 'Letter hinted at knighthood.'
The Telegraph, London (2003). 'He felt let down and betrayed.'
The Telegraph, London (2003).''Kelly 'felt betrayed' by MoD.'


information he'd given Andrew Gilligan had plainly begun to fade. They accepted that, while he had spoken to
Gilligan, he was not "the prime source". He was told that he had behaved "very honourably". It is often
pointed out that his voice was so low as to be inaudible. This is true, but it was inaudible from the start;
whatever hushed him could not have been the committee's line of questioning.
In sum, he was more or less exonerated, in so far as anyone can use that word in this murky setting. Had it
been a trial, the jury would have quickly reached a "not guilty" verdict, whatever residual doubts they might
have had.
The select committee system is not some ancient part of our constitutional heritage. It was set up by
Norman St John Stevas when he became Margaret Thatcher's first leader of the house in 1979. It was meant
to act as a means of checking on and scrutinising ministers and departments who would otherwise be able to
hide behind the guaranteed majority provided by the whips. It was also designed to provide an alternative
career for talented and hardworking MPs who would owe their loyalty to parliament and the electorate rather
than to government and party. No wonder Thatcher hated it, and successive governments have squirmed
angrily as they see their own backbenchers sign up to harsh assaults on their competence.
Sometimes it fails and produces wishy-washy milksop reports. At other times it succeeds triumphantly.
I have seen far, far rougher grillings than anything Dr Kelly had to suffer: Derry Irvine on his wallpaper,
freemasons in front of Chris Mullin's home affairs committee, rail bosses on the receiving end of Gwyneth
Dunwoody, who makes the Foreign Affairs committee look like a basket of kittens, and almost anyone called
to face Gerald Kaufman's culture committee. At a time when government is more and more overweening,
more powerful, more aggressive and arrogant, we need the select committee system urgently. It would be
dreadfully unjust and damaging if Dr Kelly's death were blamed on it...' 29

Here, essentially, we have the select committee also buying the line that this current situation was
one that Dr Kelly just found himself in as well then. So, what else got in there then? For he was
angry about something, he arrived home so! Most, though, would have been pleased to have just
gotten home after that, and he'd been in plenty of scrapes before, even 'back in the USSR,' there!
On the sidelines?
The emphasis put by the Kelly family (it was how he was treated that day that did it for him
finally), might seem a bit light after that last read through? Or made light of there, but maybe not
though, just not put together properly yet? Other emphasis could be put on other wording during
those proceedings even, bearing in mind what befell Dr Kelly after that. Instance he was asked,
this can be seen as very offensive either way you view it, might he not be a 'fall guy', 'chaff' even?
And that is as close as you can get to being asked if you weren't a patsy now as well? And that is,
isn't it, an American expression now? And indeed another source has him asked just exactly that
And we could add the idea that he may have felt that in some respect, in respect of Durkheim's
thinking again. Allowing that there might have been something held back, pushed to the fore by
some imperative as per that then? Had he been even? Or why was he in this position even, he
might have asked himself that by way of that question then. And so another question there then?
To get to yet!
Yet back to Hawton now then, we have to fit him in here and there, to get to any nub here, then
perhaps to any other nub perhaps not clear even to him? Both lines of thinking, anyway, might
help align us here? Worth this pause perhaps? Before the Hutton inquiry then, Hawton said this
then, that essentially he was,
'" well-nigh certain [then]" that Dr Kelly committed suicide, and probably decided to do so on or after July
17...' [And that] the major factor was the severe loss of self esteem, resulting from his feeling that people
had lost trust in him and from his dismay at being exposed to the media... he would have seen it as being
publicly disgraced...'
'[Further] he must have begun he is likely to have begun to think that, first of all, the prospects for

Guardian, London (2003). Simon Hoggart's sketch:''Don't blame the MPs; they perform a crucial role.'
As above, and footnote, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). P.4. Original source also: Cohen, Nick (2010). London, England.
Columnist, Blogger:


continuing in his previous work role were diminishing very markedly and, indeed, my conjecture that he had
begun to fear he would lose his job altogether [the effect of something like that would have been that?].'
[And after that, we could separate this out] that would have filled him with a profound sense of hopelessness;
and that, in a sense, his life's work had been not wasted but that it had been totally undermined...' 31 (This

And, in the second phase of the inquiry, and on the subject of Dr Kelly's mother's suspected
suicide years before, the subject of some speculation as to the relevance of that, he said on top of
that (above), that,
' an individual who had a close relative who had committed suicide may be more comfortable with taking
his or her own life but, equally, with "intimate knowledge of [its] terrible impact" might be less likely to follow

Ah, but he ignored that? Or, something overrode that quite natural reluctance to impact others?
'We have nothing to fear but fear itself...'
Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It's one thing to say this, quite another to live with fear. Yet an over riding thought could be that
we would be doing the world a favour as well now, and so we would not just be saving ourselves, a
favour if we rid the earth of that savage enemy. Thus that would become an ideal next... And that
in would be line with Durkheim's anomie, on from that again, the sacrifice would be worth it, even
of ourselves...
Dr Kelly would also have had some fear of the Iraqi regime to live with now. Naturally this would
have built up over time. He even thought that they might kill him at home, that this was a
possibility, even if that were remote. Apart from his time spent in Iraq, what might have fed this
fear then after that? What may have left some indelible mark?
Obviously, going on from above, it would have been general for the inspectors in Iraq back when
they first went in, into Iraq post Saddam's forces being removed from Kuwait in 1991, some fear
from then on, and that managed, kind of then... Yes together, as per the above heading again, they
would have managed this. And when together, in a group, these would have been the best of
times, we needn't doubt. Undoubtedly though they were isolated at times, or felt so. There would
have been tense moments and intense moments then. And these would have left some mark on
all of them.
One has been described and which allows that Dr Kelly was even singled out on one occasion for
maybe a bit of byplay, but what are we to make of this? Yet this was some joke Iraqi officials said
then. Surprising they didn't investigate this, had they, they might have been surprised at perhaps
some other bit of byplay going on then, and we are only asking this?
For while this might seem a bit dark now, we are going to wonder about that laser light incident
again anyway? Or about whether that might have been some sort of stunt which ever way it went?
A bit of Hollywood even... For this light, it played around 'his heart... moved slowly upwards' to his
head... and rested there (to come). And while that might give us a start, the general direction of
this here, all's still fair in love and war even now, and so we can look at this?
And, one way or another, war, back then, was coming back then anyway, we know that now. On
that day, at that FAC meeting again, it was underway, even as they spoke. And so another

Hawton, Professor Keith (2003). Psychiatrist, expert witness: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry. (Tuesday, 2 September 2003).
Hawton, Professor Keith (2003). Psychiatrist, expert witness: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry. (Wednesday, 24 September 2003).


thought, well there might have been one or two even, running through our man's mind that day
then? From thinking back, from thninking on, and from where he was sitting, a hot day, some day
of reckoning that could have been even?
(Of note here, and worth pinning here, with the UNSCOM phase over at the end of 1998 (and so Dr
Kelly's time spent in Iraq periodically at an end), the last inspection regime was installed at the
end of 2002. Referred to as UNMOVIC, this was another UN group, this didn't include Dr Kelly then,
but of Rockingham, he was part of at least that group, he would agree at his second committee
appearance (ISC), the next day. Finally there would be the ISG, Iraq Survey Group, with which Dr
Kelly would be active in Iraq next/ Note ends).
And now we have this from Mai Pederson again (this and herself first mentioned in, the fuss about
Kelly? (Part one), p.85), and she was Dr Kelly's interpreter in Iraq during 1998 then (at the end of
his period again there then). And though she was also an American Army intelligence officer, she
was also a 'friend' of Dr Kelly's it seems as well then, they had become this... And in 2008 she
described this, and went into some detail now, of how it was for all of them in Iraq back then, and
brings up this incident again?
One night, a group of us were out walking [then] and suddenly a red laser shone out. It went from Davids
heart to his head and it pretty much stayed on the middle of his forehead.
The inspectors said it happened all the time. The idea was to intimidate David, showing they could pick him
out as a target even in the dark.
Enraged, Ms Pederson insisted that the Russian inspector heading the team complain to General Amer AlSaadi, Saddam Husseins British-educated weapons adviser.
'The general said it was children playing, she said derisively. The other thing that bothered me was that key
people on the team were constantly getting sick.
The symptoms were very similar to anthrax. We joked that they were poisoning us so we couldnt finish our
job. David pretty much lived on Vegemite and bread.33

And this is from Pederson in 2010 now, a similar recounting of all this again, and worth getting
down again, on the subject of fear and what fed this then? And so her reading of this again:
'One night in 1998, five years before the U.S. and Britain invaded, the pair shared a life-or-death experience
on a stroll around the Iraqi capital.
Suddenly, a red laser dot appeared on the British scientist's clothes over his heart: an unseen sniper had
him in his sights.
The laser beam moved slowly upwards until it was trained on the centre of Kelly's forehead.
Amid unbearable tension, the red dot remained there for what seemed like an age.
The sniper didn't pull the trigger it was simply a warning. Iraqi officials brushed off the incident, sniggering
that it was just 'kids playing around'.
But Kelly knew his life was in grave danger, informing his younger companion that he had been told by
intelligence sources that he was number three on a Saddam Hussein death list as a result of his work.' 34

Now, having worked this up again we are wondering about this again now then? As this is certainly
an account of how far some fear may have settled on Dr Kelly, or somewhere near to how at least?
With his seeming being singled out there then, and unaccountably so, so far as we know?
The heart of darkness?
In a posting below now, it is put there that the American's believed he was influential in any case
as well? And so that they marked him out for special treatment themselves? Whatever, but for now
how about how did he know he was even on any list like that mentioned just now?
Its the long way round this, but to add in Mai Pederson again, to this, she has in that later article

Daily Mail, London (2008). 'David Kelly's closest female confidante on why he COULDN'T have killed himself.'
Daily Mail, London (2010). Pederson, Mai. Friend/ Colleague of Dr Kelly: Why I'm certain my friend Dr Kelly was


emphasised again that she couldn't see how Dr Kelly could have done this to himself now as well?
And that as Dr Kelly couldn't swallow pills, and that he could hardly cut steak with his right arm
either (let alone cut his left wrist himself then we must suppose now?)
Also, as she knew him well, he had also said that he never would do 'that' anyway to himself (and
as to how that came up we could wonder as well?). But now he said that he wouldn't as he knew of
the pain that came after (and that would be as per Hawton to Hutton above again).
These, Pederson's opinions, concerns, could have come out at the inquiry long before then now!
But these did not, besides Pederson was not pressed to give evidence to the inquiry then - and
why should she have been anyway, as she was well away from the UK then - and so no great
conspiracy seemed founded then...
Back on that, she did though give a statement though, and freely it seems, and that in the context
of those not in the UK at the time of this death then, but nonetheless in contact with Dr Kelly up till
when this happened now. And here we've never seen much mention of this, so there!
Pederson, pressed to appear before the inquiry this would have been quite some testimony (the
above claims then). But it was plain, back then, that she wouldn't even if asked anyway (and we
have seen plenty on this). And in fact she didn't even want to be named. But then her name was
leaked anyway, to the Times, at that time? And in those times she was first up portrayed as a
'shadowy Mata Hari figure' then, this which had startled her she has apparently said now then. And
so she stayed away, but she was going to anyway? Anyway, main thing, she is talking now, more
sure of herself then, talking up a storm even, still why now?
Is it simply, perhaps, because she has been tracked down again then now? And so that more effort
has gone in to get her to talk then, about this again? And, well possibly, a bit of that maybe, but
maybe not so tied in with the military now? And so some guilt perhaps, some left over feelings
even, it's not unknown of, that...
But could she have misled him, that has also been put out? And so could that then be what Dr
Kelly thought she might have done to him then, at some moment, before that committee meeting
again? And so could that have been her other role then, to mislead him after all that then? And
the war had come to nothing now, nothing known to him, and so over nothing and so why
somehow? And so could it also have been, now, that now she also realises what a very decent
human being our man may have been (why she has even said so, now!). And perhaps she knows
the difference even now? And here of course, she could just as easily have been misled herself as
she may have misled Dr Kelly then?
But it might have been in only one sense this, for Dr Kelly to finally sense his end, as Hawton put it
again: That it seemed, Dr Kelly had somehow sensed this (against evidence of this), that his work
might very well have come to an end now, fully compromised somehow, still begs this question,
we've begged it, how then?
And as we asked, before, what might have fed this fear in Dr Kelly then? And we have recounted
the laser light night, and it was dark. Now we might as well wonder if Pederson might even have
cut Dr Kelly's steak up for him then? And, then, or in any other respect as well now then, might she
have fed him a line? For, whatever else she was, she was still, then, an officer in the American
military then.
And now a 'Mr Toad' (this was about while Hutton was sorting this out, online for a while,
anonymous and so dodgy), has said that she did just that now. Or that she fed our man, others as
well then, dodgy intelligence back then, and that supposedly from on the ground in Iraq then.
When the rest of them couldn't get back in there, in that intervening period then, the period
between UNSCOM and UNMOVIC again then?
And, Mr Toad says, it was in this other respect that Dr Kelly's main employers, the British Ministry


of Defence (MoD), were concerned in the main about this friendship with this Ms. Pederson as well
now then? And so some investigation perhaps, into some of the byplay by themselves now? And
this may be some of this muddying of the pond still now? Now should we let this settle there? Or,
what of this as well?
'Mr. Toad posts on the Guardian Talk forum on 30 December 2003:
"This from my friends on the river bank [MI6?]:
Hutton is a jigsaw puzzle. And like all the best puzzles there was a piece missing. Some people have found
the missing piece, but they keep trying to put it in upside-down.
1998 Mai Pederson attached to Kelly as UNSCOM translator.
1998 UNSCOM out of Iraq [kicked out].
1998 Tom Mangold presents Panorama documentary revealing extensive infiltration of UNSCOM by national
security services [more on this, to come].
2000-2003 MoD becomes suspicious of Kelly's relationship with Pederson [which stays close, he visits, Baha'i
assemblies, and so on]. Begins moving Kelly towards the door marked 'exit', but does it quietly so as not to
alarm Kelly or his friends overseas. No grading increase, retirement age reduced from 65 to 60, moved to PR
role with no access to classified information. [This early retirement does seem to have been looming, not
necessarily settled though, this from the personal emails available see something on this below 35].
May 2003 Gilligan interviews senior member of HMG, who makes the Campbell 45 minute claim 'off the
record'. Gilligan cannot run the story without a creditable source, so is pointed to Kelly as 'unattributable'
MoD source. Gilligan goes to Kelly, tells him he knows the 45 minute claim is fictitious and plays the 'name
game' [Bosch said this to the inquiry], then goes home and writes up his piece overnight using info from
source 1 effectively attributed to Kelly. Kelly is baffled by Gilligan's interview [the authorship], but once
Gilligan's piece goes out he realises he has been set up. He writes to MoD to admit the unauthorised
interview but denies he is the original source of Gilligan's information...
The CIA did to Kelly what they did to everyone, lied to him about Iraq's WMD. The difference is that they
thought Kelly's position as MoD bio-weapons expert would allow him to influence the policy of HMG. Here's
how it was done: Pederson was a US air force translator working from Arabic to English. After the removal of
UNSCOM from Iraq in 1998, evidence of WMD capability came from satellites and smuggled documents.
These would land first on the desk of Ms Pederson and her colleagues for translation, before passing to the
scientists for analysis, who then advised USG. In the case of Pederson, however, the documents did not come
from Iraq, but from the CIA. Pederson 'leaked' fake intelligence to Kelly over an extended period, which she
claimed came from smuggled Iraqi documents indicating the existence of WMD.
By 2003, Kelly was completely convinced not only of the existence of WMD in Iraq, but also believed he knew
what they were and where they were. However, when Kelly attempted to go to Iraq (post invasion) to locate
them, he found his way mysteriously barred. On a first occasion his official visa proved worthless and he was
turned back at Kuwait. On a second occasion he found himself confined to an airbase for the duration of his
stay on security grounds. There may be some evidence that shortly before his death, Kelly became aware of
the nature of Pederson's information...
[And in that respect that may be in this way. That in] preparation for his next planned visit to Iraq [he didn't
make this] Kelly appears to have shared information from Pederson with Gabriele Kraatz-Wadsack, a German
army weapons inspector and biological weapons expert. [And it] appear[s] from her reply, however, that she
was less than convinced as to the veracity of the information...' 36

'Loftus, Paul (L&DR-LON)

From: David Kelly
Sent: 07 February 2003 11 :21
To :
Subject: Hi
I spoke with Richard Scott today and he reminded me that it is time for annual appraisals Would you
kindly provide the proforma required please
As you can imagine life is hectic but extremely interesting at the moment It is still unclear whether I will
retire in May 2004 but my guess is that if war comes all will be resolved by then and I can move on
Best wishes,
Source this email:
Read down: Frost, Dr Stephen; Halpin, Dr David; Burns-cox, Dr Christopher; Brandon, Paul (2008). 'The Death of David



Second to last paragraph, there, here? If, Dr Kelly, did, then, become more aware of this
possibility, that he might have been receiving faked up material in this way, from a friend (he
might have realised this late in the day then unlikely to have been told, Toad can't have it all his
way); if he was able to link some of his own confusion at times up till then, with Pederson (in this
way); then it would appear, reasonably, that he might have managed this himself then, that this
thought might have got in?
This, that, the type of thinking Durkheim has said again (before all this), attributing this to his
protestant type person again, develops: 'only if its development becomes imperative [and while it
can guide us it also has an edge to it]. That is, if certain ideas and instinctive sentiments which
have hitherto adequately guided conduct, are found to have lost their efficacy, no longer suffice
[and that could be at a particular time then and could be too hard to bear even, he has as good as
said?].'37 Reflection thus, Durkheim has it, intervenes, has its own course, can have its own way
with our thinking for a time, and so it can affect our outlook...
Any contention though, that Pederson had passed Dr Kelly CIA inspired documents (that there was
some other torment,38 that we could add to this); and that Dr Kelly had worked that out for himself
as well - at any time even well finally has to stack up at least a little though. And here, you would
think, Mr Toad has said enough, surely, for us to look at the quality of his post like this... For surely,
in parts, if some of this (or these contentions), were unknown of then, we could expect,
reasonably, 'some' knowledge of this years on then?
But even back then, could Toad have backed this then? Back to nearer the end of the above from
Toad again then the suggestion that another army weapons inspector, the German Army officer,
Gabriele Kraatz-Wadsack, might have helped him see this to begin with now then? Backing up
ourselves (the above again):
'There may be some evidence that shortly before his death, Kelly became aware of the nature of
Pederson's information [...That in] preparation for his next planned visit to Iraq [he didn't make
this] Kelly appears to have shared information from Pederson with Gabriele Kraatz-Wadsack, a
German army weapons inspector and biological weapons expert. [And it] appear[s] from her reply,
however, that she was less than convinced as to the veracity of the information...' (Above).
What reply was this then, would be the central question? Or, could Dr Kelly have been shown or
told of this, or could any exhibit put up or discussed during the inquiry - before Toad's post was
allowed to be published anonymously for some odd reason? - offer some clue to an interested
party that it might have been like this?
Gabriele Kraatz-Wadsack did not appear before the Hutton inquiry. But she was, like Pederson,
interviewed and her name, like Pederson's, did come up during the inquiry, and though in a
different way, she was linked to Pederson briefly then. It is recorded that Assistant Chief Constable
Page was asked about Pederson, and asked about some material listed as 'Gabriella's concerns',
almost in the same breath, brief, then. These (stick with 'concerns' here), were three pages of
handwritten material found in Dr Kelly's briefcase when it was searched. And they had been there
from some time before then. They concern this then.
One page, the third (of Gabriella's), became available (as it was mentioned then), and so is its
classification then (to come). Still this page is purely technical. The other two are not allowed then,
to be seen. But the classification of these, as personal then, could have lead to this thinking?
The other two are embargoed as personal, we've said (and they were said to be so then, before
Kelly and the Sexed Up WMD Report: Was BBC Andrew Gilligan's Original Source a Senior Member of Her Majesty's
Government?' Posted, hosted now, by Global Research, USA:
As above, P.7.
Or 'turmoil' as Simon Hoggart put it, then (back up, p.11).


Hutton again). There is one more from Gabriella, somewhat personal though, and this from his
personal mail as well though now! (to get to below). First, before this, Assistant Chief Constable
Page now, who provided a link between Pederson and Wadsak Gratz to begin with now, and this as
reported in the Telegraph as well now, and so 'out there' as well:
'The Assistant Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police, Michael Page, told the Hutton Inquiry that officers had
investigated all Dr Kelly's contacts in the last days of his life, including Miss Pederson.
He said although she would not give officers a statement, a record was made of her interview but it added
nothing that was of relevance to his inquiry into Dr Kelly's death.
Police also spoke to another woman who was close to Dr Kelly through his work. Gabriella Kraz Wadsak, an
officer in the German army, had worked with him for a number of years in Iraq, and had also been in contact
with him in the days before his death.
Dr Kelly expressed to her concerns about the efficacy of the weapons inspection programme in Iraq...' 39

Next, the Hutton inquiry line, with Page questioned over this, before the Telegraph (above), got on
to this?
5 Q. Have there been other people you have contacted and
6 taken statements from?
7 A. In order, my Lord, there were twelve individuals
8 including Olivia Bosch from whom we took statements.
9 Q. Was one of those persons Mia Pedersen?
10 A. Yes, we interviewed Mia Pedersen. She declined to give
11 a statement as such but I have a record of the
12 interviews that took place.
13 Q. Were you able to obtain any relevant evidence from her?
14 A. The conversation with Mia Pedersen added nothing that
15 was of relevance to my inquiry at all.
16 Q. There was also some called Gabriella Kraz-Wadsak, is
17 that right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Who is she?
20 A. Gabriella Kraz-Wadsak is an officer in the German army.
21 She worked alongside Dr Kelly in Iraq for a number of
22 years and had been in contact with Dr Kelly in the days
23 before his death as indeed she had been for some years
24 before that.
25 Q. Was she able to give any relevant evidence?
1 A. Nothing that furthered my inquiries at all.
2 Q. There was a document TVP/2/20 headed "Gabriella's
3 concerns". Was she able to explain what this meant to
4 you?
5 A. Yes, indeed my Lord. Apparently the document refers to
6 a conversation or conversations that she had with
7 Dr Kelly between June 14th and the 17th, and apparently
8 refers to Dr Kelly's assessment of the efficacy of the
9 inspection programme in Iraq. Hence, I think there is
10 a heading there which says "Confidence of legitimacy and
11 deterrence effect"; and apparently around the issues
12 that Dr Kelly has recorded there and recorded numbers
13 along each side of, they were discussing those issues
14 and assessing impact of the programme...'40

Finally, here, and this relating to this document TVP/2/20 again, and headed "Gabriella's concerns"

The Telegraph, London (2004).''American tells of her friendship with Kelly.'''
Page, Michael (2003). Assistant Chief Constable, Thames Valley Police: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.


again, and its classification then? Here 2/3rds of this was marked personal (unusual this), not
secret then, the most common reason from embargoed material by Hutton then! And so some
concerns were of a personal nature then, it follows from this. And indeed Toad may have
connected this, or been shown this, may even have had this highlighted for him (yes before, he as
good as say this), but still these are some dots, dashes even_
'Exhibit GHW/1/3 - handwritten list entitled "Gabriele's concerns" - not for release - personal information/
TVP/2/0019 0020.'41

And, as mentioned above again, this mentioned during the Hutton inquiry again, or before Toads
post, and so we rest some sort of case there... With our point being, that as this was classified
then, but with the one page mentioned then, and if then the reason not fot the other two, and this
before Toad's post, then Toad could have added 1 from 2 Toad and could have drawn some
conclusion along those lines again. And so might we even, but he has said he was inspired to this
conclusion in another fishy way... And the idea about Pederson, that she was a slink, well that was
already up and running about, put up by the Times already that!
But, why, now, or why not by now, we'd ask, hasn't someone leaked these other two pages by now
then? For that really would have cleared up quite a bit of this, and made Toad's look less like one of
those. In fact we'd then be likely to believe the rest of this post of his then, but for that. Or at least
something else, Toad said, coming to light by now then... But there is none of that. And an answer
to that, as with conjecture is always best left behind, for it is but the hind of something for others
to blunt their teeth on, and that's fine.
Last, this section, the one personal email between Gabriele and Dr Kelly, not embargoed then. And
which may, or may not, be in two parts as well (too much redacted to be sure?). But in this email,
our man, has seemingly spent near a week in Wadsak's company (it seems when these three
pages may have been sketched out), and apologises, here, for being a little subdued then, and
thanks her for being so understanding as well. But there is no mention of any particular quandary
they may have gone over again, though of course there may have been (and in this Toad may be
right then or this might have been re the veracity of some intelligence before them even). But,
before, Toad has never mentioned this visit there?
'Frorn: David Kell _
Sent: 23 June 2003 10 58 [A Monday]
Subject: Telephone
I hope that the weekend was good I got back late and it has been difficult since
My telep hone is out of order- my personal number~still works and of course my mobile
[Below this]:
Thanks for a great week I had a lot on my mind so I know that I was a little subdued thanks for being just
Best wishes,

Ghost writers in the sky?

So how did toad get to the heart of this (Toad may have) from darkness? Well it might have been
from splendid deduction then. And if some interest was not peaked by the aforementioned, was it
peaked a little time closer to the time of his post, 30 December 2003, now then? And, now,
perhaps by this:

Hutton Inquiry (2003). Evidence: From Dr Kelly's home. (Scroll down 28 items).
Hutton Inquiry (2003). Evidence: From Dr Kelly's home computer.


1998 Tom Mangold presents Panorama documentary revealing extensive infiltration of UNSCOM
by national security services.' (From Toad above, again, p,14, on).
This, which is from the beginning of Toad's post always did seem somewhat out of place, so
placed? Why place it there, or why at all even? Where's the context in respect of the rest of the
post? Its not spelt out, but that is not left out? Just the idea that Dr Kelly's employers became
suspicious of his relationship with Pederson some how then... But is this the run up to Toad's own
idea, if so brilliant then, hats off to this...
Leaving all other ideas aside for now, to get at the heart of this idea now, the programme
mentioned by Toad (first off again), covers mention of a BBC programme entitled: SECRET SPIES
and VIDEOTAPE... as well now. And, well, that was made in 1999 actually (not 1998 now), and just
how 'revealing' that programme was 'we' can't ever be sure of course, ourselves now?
But involving Scott Ritter, this was his contention then (as before, from, the fuss about Kelly? (Part
one), p.107), that, 'the whole UNSCOM operation had been overwhelmed by the CIA... [back then,
and this following the first Gulf War, which saw the inspection regime inserted in Iraq next]...' 43
In this programme now (made in 1999 again), but on Ritter ostensibly then, Dr Kelly does get one
word in there (he is sandwiched in between as he may always have been, just a thought there?),
on the UN Mandate then:
'It gave us unprecedented access to a country where we had the right to go anywhere, to see anyone, to
make any inquiry that we liked. It meant that these were truly on-site inspections, highly intrusive, highly
robust inspections [a slightly different context this, as Dr Kelly was proud of this, focus...].' 44

Now, following this, Ritter's last interview in Britain, was on the BBC programme, HARDtalk, then!
And this was on 6 October 2003, and now this is closer to Toad's post then (that being, again 30
December again). Going with this, Ritter's contention then, then, was this that there being no
WMD found in Iraq, then the next,
' best thing for the United States, for Great Britain, for the world [now] is to get a properly mandated United
Nations inspection team back [in] to Iraq [then now].'45

And, well, that might not have been a bad thing then. Yet we could see for ourselves, hopefully as
well now, just how almost 'any' facts aired now, could have seemed 'bourne' out of just such a
conspiracy now then. The team, Ritter thought then, somewhat disillusioned himself by now, just
there to register the whereabouts of targets for some time when? Well, when came actually.
And, or well, we could see, at least, how it was that Scott Ritter came to have creditability as well
now then. And you can see then how this might have come from Toad again after that for one
thing leads to another doesn't it again, and with that run on the BBC just before his post again,
and surprisingly still, anon (but now gone).
But, taken in again, you could see now how Dr Kelly could then have been linked to this deception
then, taken in as Toad suggested, above again. And with the Times (before), having already put up
this idea that Pederson, another friend of Dr Kellys, was this Mata Hari type as well, indeed. And
so that might have been that for Toad, and with pen in hand he went for it?
Another point made by Toad has been that Dr Kelly was in effect being blackmailed over Pederson
by his employers (ostensibly the MoD), as well now then? A bridge too far this, we think. Too bold

The narrative of this programme, "SECRET SPIES and VIDEOTAPE" can be seen at
BBC News, HARDtalk (2003). UK. Iraq: Scott Ritter (7 October, 2003): In a HARDtalk interview on 6 October, David Jessel
spoke to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter about the latest report on weapons on mass destruction in Iraq.


of him/her, even? He adds that they were always concerned over his relationship with Pederson
anyway (above again). And indeed this is the thrust of a new work on the 'affair', we could call it
that then, and so, that way, whose to say, that this was the sort of pressure that sent him over the
edge instead or as well then?
And this is a reasonable suggestion (perhaps worth mentioning then?), except that if he was
(being blackmailed in some way), then he might most definitely have left a note behind about that
now then (and why not then)? And that perhaps even addressed to Dear Tom then, the maker of
that programme then. (footnote to come). And whom would no doubt then have made some
programme about this as well then...
And, with the BBC connections in place, he was well placed, to have made a fuss about this next
then. Indeed it was even he, that suggested that if that had been the case that would have been
shared with him, that there would have been some note to that effect, left for him, or in the post,
Dear Tom, even.46
But now, another row, after this? For another work that has inspired some ire, was perhaps then
again inspired by Toad after his post again? And so a kind of knock on effect perhaps, again? And
that as this author47 goes with this idea now then - that Dr Kelly was in some kind of blind alley
then, and holds out after that, that as the reason why Dr Kelly was in this 'spot' now then? And
that because he was being threatened (not mildly then?). And this was able to be enabled because
there were stories that could come about him as well now? And more fiction to come?
More Fiction?
This fits well enough here (and well it has to fit somewhere), and so we will fit it here. And this
concerns this business of a namesake of Dr Kelly's coming out with this idea now then that
perhaps Dr Kelly was a Walter Mitty type, a bit more typing as per like Pederson again. And then,
strange this again, as doubts like this, raised, can help us out as regards other doubts, raised,
now! And these namely the substance of Dr Kelly's marriage after that now then...
And getting back, again, to that period (circa 2003 then), it was inferred after this that Prime
Minister Blair might have been behind all this as well now then! He rather than this MP, or even
Campbell, why wasnp;t he brought up again? But at least this was not the BBC over doing this

During 1998 Dr Kelly collaborated with a Frontline production entitled "Plague War", this written by Tom Mangold and
shown on the BBC in the U.K and on PBS in the U.S. - with the productions main theme being the abatement of biological
weapons programmes. In this programme it was 'discovered' [by Dr Kelly actually] that Russia had violated a treaty signed
in 1972 on this matter, whereas the U.S. and U.K. had abated their biological weapon's programs from then on... The script
to this Frontline production is available also: BBC/ PBS Broadcasting (1998). FRONTLINE 1706 "Plague War". Mangold is also acknowledged now as having been
a close friend of Dr Kellys, and he also commented on his death on the part of Dr Kelly's family:
'The key [he'd said then] to Dr Kellys suicide has always been what happened on July 15 at the Commons Foreign Affairs
Committee, where Dr Kelly was asked whether he had briefed BBC Newsnights Susan Watts about Iraqs weapons of mass
destruction.' This the family would stick with as well, his rough treatment there then. We know this.
This changed, as Mangold did not stick with this so closely later, as in a later item on this, in the Daily Mail (2011). Here
(see link below), Mangold goes so far as to say that he and another very close friend of Dr Kelly's conversed with him 48
hours beforehand, and that they know the truth (always have then?), and now bemoan that it will never come out now?
Thus, he complains, this has been left to the conspiracy theorists forever then? In this item he reports that Dr Kelly 'did not
feel he was being hounded' by anyone in particular either (this other person agrees), not the government even. And, so,
now, this unfortunate outcome also involved his marriage, then, and another personal relationship that had developed over
some time back then as well now. And now, here, he means Mai Pederson, says so even (and that this other close confidant
could back that up as well this is not Bosch), though he has also been hostile to her also since.
Mangold would finish this now anyway - saying that if this personal dimension didn't exist, and that if Dr Kelly did feel
'hounded,' then, then, 'he would have left a suicide note or a letter to his friends, placing the blame where he thought it
belonged' then. And this is fairly reasonable logic also, we know, and so have included this here also. The article: Daily
Mail, London (2011). 'I'm sure I know the truth about Dr Kellys death. But, thanks to Hutton, the world will never be told',
his friend reveals...' By TOM MANGOLD: 'Once again, the conspiracy theorists are crying foul over the refusal of the
Government to hold an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.'
Acknowledgements to, Dark Actors: The Life and Death of Dr David Kelly, by Robert Lewis (2013).


now, their story then: 'Blair [only] under pressure over Mitty remark [now]':
The BBC:
'The prime minister is facing calls to sack his spokesman for referring to government weapons inspector Dr
David Kelly as a "Walter Mitty" character.
Tom Kelly made the remarks during what Downing Street regarded as off-the-record conversations with
journalists about the Hutton inquiry into the scientist's death.
On Tuesday, Mr Kelly said he "deeply regretted" making the comments and "apologised unreservedly" to Dr
Kelly's widow and family...
[Further down the item, we can all get caught, and by others in the said profession]
"I deeply regret... that what I thought was a private conversation48 with a journalist last week has led to
further public controversy...'49

Well rounded off that, and here we are inclined to throw in a hat, but not crank up the rack! Yet
even as Dr Kelly's wife, Janice, had taken particular exception to this, we think we can at least add
this from that then that what this does show then, is that there was no, then, common all,
Whitehall gossip (Dr Kelly's employer, ostensibly the MoD, resident those surrounds), going around
about Dr Kelly and any other women then. And that was a story that we also know now, that did
the rounds before Toad's post came out after that as well!
Another aspect of this, getting back to that, is just as there were no rumours like that flying about
just then, then - then we should perhaps allow now that what Toad came out with always has
been, in some ways, of some sort of some mitigation on some other level! For just as some of
those on the riverbank were no doubt casting about so as to understand how they had got so
caught up in all this themselves, so there were some significant American's netted some how as
well then. But that, as above, may have been without some hand, or much of a hand, anyway,
Avoid having your ego so close to your position that when your position fails your ego goes...
General Colin Powell. US Army

Worthy of Hollywood, all of this yet? Well, seems not, yet. No plot to get? Well some? Forgiven
frankness, for some wide shot here, it would begin, wouldn't it, with the big screen again, with
some over all projection again. Who could forget, and with some sense of portents there, those
trailers being moved about as before now, at the UN, on that big screen there. That footage ready
to be wheeled out again....
It would be self-explanatory then, but explained anyway there, and by American Secretary of
State, Colin Powell, Head of US Armed Forces then, a Four-Star General still, and you've got to feel
a little for him now as well, as this footage can be used again, come the day when Dr Kelly is
included in this larger picture then?
But come that day, there were replays for days anyway, on the small screens in diners, bars, and
wherever people hung out then. And there were shots (not at), of Bush in the background, talking,
looking about, his tongue flicking out, a line it was being drawn in the sand, this one he pointed
out... And the spectre of Hitler was raised even, and the failure of the League of Nations to heed
the threat prior to Japan dropping out of the league, as Hitler's rose up, they all sat back. Well not
again, now then! And all of this, anyway, on the over heed screen, and some of this was backdrop
even to the film closet to this game so far, Fair Game, that is, out in 2010, as good a story as any
other yet, and oh so close to some of the scenes backstage then!
Que next, and we could have Russell Crowe standing in for Dr Kelly now then. Cut to the Baghdad
'airbase' (the one Toad says he was detained at also then), but with Dr Kelly getting a look at these
trailers there now then (despite being confined like that?). Crowe's opening line next, he is
scratching at his beard, overhead:

A term worth underlining, we feel, again.

BBC News (2003).'Blair under pressure over Mitty remark.'


'These don't seem to be for anything other than blowing up balloons these?' Some shaking of the heads next
(Rufford down the line, gets an honest comment out of him on this, on the phone, but the story he runs does
not name him then, though the next one will though Dr Kelly didn't mind this as much as the next one to
come where he was named). Down the end of another line we have, 'Say,' And, 'Say, what...'
again? And then further along the line: 'Say what, again..' yet again? And then, 'Well hell, how do we manage
this, now...?

Bearded up Crowe would look the part definitely come to think now. Why he might even be more
the right man due to a part hes played like this before. That was, A Beautiful Mind (released
2001), then, and it played well, moved an audience or two as well: After a brilliant but asocial
mathematician accepts secret work in cryptography, his life takes a turn to the nightmarish. 50 And,
well, it did, same again...
Crowe also came close to playing another Kelly in Australia before now then. And that was one Ned
Kelly then (that released back in 2003 as well actually). And Ned was another taken down in a fight
that he possibly thought was still fair somehow, then? 'Such is life...' or so it is said, he said, before
being hung in mel bourne gaol, more stoic times then, and they might have been?
That role, tis an aside all this, was taken finally by Heath Ledger then though, another Australian
actor (though Crowe is a Kiwi, all said and done, often is), and who died 2008, of an accidental
overdose it is also said now then? But of whom it has also been said that he always put too much
into his roles as well now, as no doubt Dr Kelly did, himself (is this the link then?), as well...
But here it gets sounder, rounder even, now? For Naomi Watts, co-star with Ledger in Ned Kelly,
then, also played Valerie Plame in Fair Game, released in 2010 again then, now. And, now, Plame's
last job with the CIA, her career ended in this film just then (and that three days out from our man
was found dead as well now), by her being outed now, just as she was about to pull an Iraqi
scientist out of Iraq... And one who could have said, apparently, much the same thing to the world
as our man might have said himself then? That there was bugger all to fight over now. So why not
stop, even, now?
To get even more out of this now - well, after another look at this, this situation then would have
meant, as well, that the inspection regime that Dr Kelly had been part of, before the war, had
been more successful than had ever before been imagined before then, as well? But now with no
cause to celebrate now, for the cause had got out of hand in some other way there? That some
'spot' to be in as well!
Get back?
Somehow it was but a short hop to this other mad, bad or sad spot now? And to this (from this first
mentioned, in the fuss about Kelly? (Part one), p.85; 86; 104; 105), to this or what again now?
'I will wait until the end of the week before judging many dark actors playing games...'
There was a bit more to this (it had another half added on), but this is the bit that got the attention
of the New York Times next! Well it was sent there, by Dr Kelly again that last morning then, as
were others, all 'in bunch' (ACC Page said this as in the first work, p.86), again. And to Judith
Miller there, went this one. And so it got the attention of the rest of us now then, as she wouldn't
let that rest there. Especially not after Dr Kelly's death!
To add, again here, this was not the only message sent then we know! But it may have been the
only one of its kind? And getting to that Assistant Chief Constable Page said he spent near two
months trying to get to the bottom of this (prior email now), or considerable time, considering
'interpretations', of this, and then making 'extensive enquiries' around those then after that..! 51

A Beautiful Mind, review: Director, Ron Howard, Happy days fame, the Fonz...
Page, Michael (2003). Assistant Chief Constable, Thames Valley Police: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.


There was one other email of interest that we know more of though. For Dr Kelly also sent what
has been described as a 'combative' one to a colleague before he went off on that fateful walk,
also! Also he switched off his phone after that! And his phone did not come on again, after that.
Now for some explication of the dark actors one first; the combative one last. For the first bit of
this, the New York Times got this from Janice Kelly, and came up with this:
'Weapons expert Dr David Kelly told of many dark actors playing games in an e-mail to a journalist hours
before his suicide, it was reported today.
The words appeared to refer to officials at the Ministry of Defence and UK intelligence agencies with whom
he had sparred over interpretations of weapons reports, according to the New York Times.
The message gave no indication that he was depressed and said he was waiting "until the end of the week"
before judging how his appearance before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee had gone.
The newspaper did not name the recipient of the e-mail.
It said another associate had received a "combative" message from Dr Kelly shortly before he left his
Oxfordshire home for the last time on Thursday.
The scientist said in the e-mail that he was determined to overcome the scandal surrounding him and was
enthusiastic about the possibility of returning to Iraq.
Dr Kelly was grilled by MPs last week over his comments to reporters about the use of intelligence in the
run-up to the war in Iraq.
He had denied being the main source for a BBC story about claims that a dossier on Iraq had been "sexed
up" to boost public support for military action.
Dr Kelly's wife Janice told the New York Times her husband had worked on Thursday morning on a report he
said he owed the Foreign Office and had sent some e-mails to friends.
She said: "After lunch, he went out for a walk to stretch his legs as he usually does."
Mrs Kelly said she had no indication that her husband was contemplating suicide. "But he had been under
enormous stress, as we all had been."' 52

In total they may not have actually been over all that though? For where it seems where our man
may have been having more difficulty then, was over addressing questions put to him in the wake
of that FAC meeting again. After that, we can assume, he was free to go to Iraq again next. And to
try and answer some real questions then, he may have thought, and of more import, also?
Still here some stress was kicking in. As questioned about his level of contact with journalists, he
seemed reluctant to give in to this line of questioning of him. These were his friends, not dark
actors, or persons that he couldn't put a face to then. Here, one instance that stands out, was that
with Susan Watts, a colleague of Gilligans, she had her own show, Newsnight. Dr Kelly, plainly,
preferred not to name her, preferring to put her name at the bottom of the list he was compiling
(the one he said he rang Bosch to discuss, over this). Then he even got Watt's last name mixed up
next, calling her Wells now instead and that the name of one of his colleagues, or should we say
their colleagues. We know this from Commander John Clark 53 who was helping him with this task,
and would have, if Dr Kelly had agreed, shipped him out to Iraq the next day after this. And it was
over this list, and over that mix up, that this combative email ensued...
Really the get back, should have been the go back to Iraq now. But there was some real difficulty
over this, this not just imagined now. In that Watts had taped a conversation with him and he must
have realised that by then. Or been told, some say, and even on that day (Bosch did not do this,
but in their conversation that last morning it did come up that notes Watt's had taken might back
up Gilligan now then, that as put out by the BBC then! Though once again Dr Kelly was astounded
by this, did not see this himself note to come...).
And Tom Mangold for one thought this might have been so also now, that he might even have
Refer to, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). P.85. And this report on this: Breaking News (2003). Kelly warned of 'dark
actors playing games.'
Clark evidence, this PDF from the Guardian:


been told that very day that he had been taped somehow? But by whom we would not know? But
even so, this might have affected his balance on that day, that so! 54 Though Mangold would
eventually say that Pederson might have as well now, but some time later on from this (actually
more than a might, above again, footnote p.20?).
Shuffling with this email again instead though then? And many dark actors yes indeed we might
think of these? But these dark actors, it seemed, he didn't think these were friends like these.
Indeed it could be argued that he was trying to protect these? A frank interview though, and some
of this would have gone away... And who could have contradicted him. And indeed Rufford was
after this, after the MoD let his name 'slip'. But he sent him away (Mrs Kelly said this - but that she
also thought it a ploy to corner any story55).
We could easily make some case that 'things' were being rearranged a little by now of course! And
now at a time when many Britons, apart from Blair (are we being unfair here?), must have begun
to wonder how they'd got into this war? And so far as whomsoever else was concerned, some
concern about themselves then, may have begun to emerge, and so some merging, with some
trying to slip into the shadows away from this now, into the dark that they might emerge as
another type, never for this in the first place now?
There may at least then, and following that (and at a distance we know that, yet), have been the
appearance so far as Dr Kelly was aware of much of his surroundings then (at the FAC meeting), of
some distancing by some MPs from this now. And did he even know who had been for this war
then, amongst the members, some of them glaring at him there? Not friends at all then, not his,
this lot. And this was some worrying situation, and he would have appreciated that as much as any
of them. But he wasn't trying to distance himself from this more important issue as regards that
now. Yet he would not have appreciated being shown up like this. Nor would we now, having been
all for one, or one for all, just prior to that now.
There is this left then, only this, left from that now. And this is that Dr Kelly may not, as if a pot,
have been prepared to have been called black by the kettle now, that a bit dark for now. And
because of that, not only due to that email again now then, another murder scenario was
advanced then, a little on from that now.
Here, the primary book that claims this, and published four years on, 56 lets on as one of its planks
of evidence in that the fact that our man had booked a flight back to Iraq for the following Friday
with our Wing Commander John Clark then (mentioned in his evidence again 57). This a main plank
for his being stopped then But it couldn't have been over just his returning there then. Yet it could
appear that Dr Kelly by then thought that that might happen there?
shift > the dark actors again then now, if we have got part of that, or just following
that thought now, do we need a them even, to prove what after that? For what we are dealing with
here surely is a moment not of just doubt about that (we have ruled murder out ourselves before
this), but a feeling of being kept out, held apart, at arms length, and behind that he would have
been wondering about the reasoning then, for that, after that now then? But if anything, from that,
we could say that our man was no longer feeling a part of something that up till then he felt fully

Guardian, London (2004). ''Susan Watts. 'BBC Newsnight science editor who spoke to Dr Kelly about the September
dossier.''' (Photo of Watts here).
Guardian, London (2003). 'Widow's anger at ploy by Sunday Times.'
The Strange Death of David Kelly (2007) - a review of which we are relying on Nick Rufford, of Telegraph fame, for. With
he, arguably, before any others, also the co-respondent who set in train the distortions that would end up being applied to
our man in respect of his media relations (see personal emails where our man was queried by his employer over some gut
spilling And then there is the al-saadi story 'He' (Dr Kelly had said?), has known
'where all the bodies are' all along' (and that against 'form' our man complained to Bosch of that as well. Yet he mentioned
this man himself in Flints doc after that..? Refs, the work before this one, p.94 & 99.
Clark, Wing Commander John (2003). Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.


part of, at least that, or on his own, now!

We have then, don't we, something? And some illogic or we might type it even, some paranoiac
thinking to start over with again now. And stage one this is really, we are no expert here. Buyt we
have imagaination, he had his. Yet, we know, don't we, that related delusions, such as these, do
lead to instances of self harm... worse, harm to others, far more often even...
As a thought process, we can read, this sort of thinking, can actually, it seems so, be heavily
influenced by anxiety or fear again now then. Or, put more generally, after looking about as
regards this now then (at opinions we mean): this type of thinking might often arise, 'concerning a
perceived threat towards oneself [as well then, or, as well] from an irrational fear of malice by
others...' But is this in this? We don't know how? But as a noun, to expound, and this according to
a clinical psychologist, a P. J. McKenna now:
'Paranoia denotes a disorder which has been argued in and out of existence [forever?], and whose clinical
features, course, boundaries, and virtually every other aspect of which is controversial. Employed as an
adjective, paranoid has become attached to a diverse set of presentations, from paranoid schizophrenia,
through paranoid depression, to paranoid personalitynot to mention a motley collection of paranoid
'psychoses', 'reactions', and 'states'and this is to restrict discussion to functional disorders. Even when
abbreviated down to the prefix para-, the term crops up causing trouble as the contentious but stubbornly
persistent concept of paraphrenia."'58

And, this term Paraphrenia, now, was, 'coined by Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum in 1863 [then, but] not to
name some specific disorder, but to draw attention that certain psychiatric disorders tend to
develop at a certain age [as well]...59
Yet that aside, and accordingly to its epidemiology (and this would have been of interest to
Durkheim now then), it is so now, albeit that this seemed more common in Germany and Spain in
his time then, more evident now in the United States of America than it was before also now also?
And that is some linc oln here!
Yet subject to that again, its coining, we could add, to begin with, anyway, that there are likely as
many causes for para anything, in relation to any of that, that we can think of now. And so as
many as you can imagine then, and imaginings doesn't seem a bad term for working our way out
of this now... Not totally delusional, would Dr Kelly have been around some of this imagining
himself for some time now? Back to related delusions again then, now? And these more in keeping
with the US again now then! Why they might even be increasing now, there...?
And we can easily imagine that somehow, or this way at least: For almost anything seems to be
able to happen there now as well. Anything you can imagine even! Yet there might be more faith
now, due to this. Yet Durkheim had it before that offshoots of this might not help us all the time!
Rather, more imagination may further stimulate our ideas about ourselves... Still we would have
to, at some time, come down
Characteristic of our man now, as he dealt with some fear, and don't we all, in varying manners,
leak a little round the edges (if we can allow the metaphor?). Ancient sicknesses could be
resurrected, our man knew that. More than that perhaps, and this a thought, deep down some
ancient part of us fears sickness more than war anyway. Or fears more the completely
incomprehensible at your door, leading to all sorts of imaginings once
Yet to top this all, of late now, late onset of these fears, which may or may not presage anxiety due
to imaginings, well these occur more so in women than in men now as well (we shouldn't be
surprised). And something to do with not being heard we can get out of the aforementioned also
that as with this prevalences of this paraphrenia again, this is also related more to hearing loss
again?60 Which beggars all of us, or does it not have the ring of something to do with this

Wikipedia: On, Paraphrenia.


developing, this not being heard, or not being able to hear Well?
A fix in time?
To here we have some knowledge now. We could even stop here, we've got the picture somehow.
But is knowledge of any use to us now? Does it give us any power or are we powerless still? And,
well, in the face of this we seem to be... But this now. How have we got to this? Well we must have
Early sociologists thought early on that we could determine this, that not only would there be
social facts behind behaviours now (yet there are), but that we might be able to predict social
behaviour (instance this behaviour even then), yet they are not so sure about this now.
Here, Anthony (Baron) Giddens, a latter day sociologist, is one that would slip an injunction into
this approach so far as it might be modified now.
'To speak of the 'reproduction' of social conduct, or social systems is to speak of the repetition of similar
patterns of activity by actors separated from each other in time and space. It is very important to stress this
point, because much social theory including that of Durkheim is pervaded by the tendency to think in
terms of physical imagery, a tendency which can have damaging consequences.
Social systems involve patterns of relationships among individuals and groups. Many sociologists picture
these patterns as rather like the walls of a building, or the skeleton of a body. This is misleading because it
implies too static or unchanging an image of what societies are like: because it does not indicate that the
patterning of social systems only exists in so far as individuals actively repeat particular forms of conduct
from one time and place to another.
If we were to use this sort of imagery at all, we should have to say that social systems are like buildings that
are at every moment constantly being reconstructed by the very bricks that compose them...' 61

Yet if this, or these, gave us a start, Giddens would be well pleased, we think, for one now. For to
build again here, this can help us out now, as to how we actually reproduce our society anyhow!
And that so far as this can be defined of course now? And so this is about how our society actually
reproduces us now as well then. Our bounds, well binds really that we might strain against
ourselves, and that we might be so restrained some by these ourselves, as they give a bit here
and there now and then...
And we are not so restrained as once we were. But we are still restrained here and there.
Otherwise there would be disorder everywhere, walls being pulled down, teachers being
restrained, class conflict following...
Last here, we'd like to add this from Giddens again. We know, somehow, that this is pertinent here
to a bigger picture even, this: That while 'knowledge may be an important adjunct to power, it is
not the same as power, our knowledge of history always tentative, incomplete...' 62
Well, last here, at least we have some feel for some of this... But can we demonstrate this. Or, how
we build on incomplete knowledge, so to speak?
Strange and stranger?
In the wake of publication of the book claiming murder63 was done, the Kelly family called for

Giddens, Anthony. Sociology: A brief but critical introduction, second edition. London, MacMillan Education Ltd,
Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire (1986).
Baker, Norman. The Strange Death of David Kelly. London, Methuen (2007).


'calm' then (and that a call Durkheim would have agreed with we think).
This book was also the first work out in the wake of this 'event', can we call it like that? And it took
a few years to come. And for sure it would have had to have been worked up. Like this work even.
Something must have begun it, before the begin; a worm of an idea that would always be.
But before this, or before going over that, which is now sort of coming after that, the Strange
Death of David Kelly finally hit the shelves in 2007 then. And so a case finally came up other than
in newsprint now, or digitally, and that now had then to be knocked down if it could be somehow.
And it would be! Yet might this tell us a little about how 'we' operate now as well?
Under way again, we have mentioned above a context, and the brick you could say that we could
have begun with ourselves, or the first course we might lay down with our trowel? And here, the
idea laid out above, undoubtedly gave that work its start again. And that was Wing Commander
Clark's mention again, that he had arranged the return of Dr Kelly to Iraq again. And, he had said that at that time that idea had even seemed to appeal to Dr Kelly. And so some start that was on
its own then, with the idea of murder again, but who now? That had to be laid out as well.
But after that, what to reach for then? This then? And with this we can see how we get to this
other sort of call also now - and so generally we do could be our contention after this as well (and
this would not only be our contention, but comes out in work of Durkheim's, later mention to
come, Giddens even, as well).
On this, following that, that work grasped at bricks just at hand also then (this Giddens imagery
again, in play), we would say. That but for one masterful exception though. And this was the one
he reached way down for, well almost stooped for, yet such a fine find it might not have been?
For apart from the Clark call then, then after that there was the question of the no WMD now as
well to contend with, or to make up for? But how now? And, well, with another brick at hand, that
would be how, how it seems at least, now. And so with the obvious next then. For armed with this,
this would then lead directly to the question of who had the most to lose now then, should the lack
of WMD become apparent too soon now then? (And then the whole thing called off? Not likely). Yet
this could lead to the murderers now then, and so it did! And so this group now then, so far unseen
(see, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one), p.66), was the group of Iraqi's, who had missiled everyone
all along then! As they had worked so as to ensure war then?
Again, to get back at that, it had been agreed that our man could go back to Iraq the end of the
following week again then (after his committee hearings then, one week after finally). And, it came
out, he was 'keen' for that as well now. Why Wing Commander Clark had even said so now, and
that his flight had been booked as well (and that to the Hutton inquiry again). And so there were
no catches envisaged with visas or anything like that again now, as there might have been by Dr
Kelly still though, this could be seen. This way he could just fly in, do, go, wherever he liked,
irrespective of hostilities...64 And actually he might even have been encouraged to, and to find
something if he could, and he might have as well (we think we have said).
There was one brick this work did reach quite some way for though. The British establishment, this
way, covered this murder up now then, having to. (A black op followed by blackmail then
really?). And was that due to Dr Kelly having visited a site while working in Iraq in 1995 now then,
where a 'radiological weapon' had been tested eight years prior to then, and he knew about that
then (mention to come Kelly's words on this before one of the committees, and so picked up
then?). This way, with suspected British involvement in this, this, that way then, had left all British
governments vulnerable to this question now then, since then?
And reaching for that British involvement in that test suspected then (a smoking gun?), that would

Wing Commander Clark explained these difficulties before see his Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.


have involved sanction busting, materially then (and there may even have been some basis for
some fuss once, that over a long gun barrel a la Hitler, his sort of thing with that being Project
Babylon65then?). Anyway, this way, that left some Iraqi group with some sort of hold over the
British government forever more since then, then (we have said). And, this way, that would also
explain why Dr Kelly, having been shown the site of this test (in 1995 again), hadn't made
anything of this (to come as well then). And not only that, but that would explain why that hadn't
been cited in the cassi belli for war either, this September 2002 dossier again, of which Dr Kelly
supplied an historical perspective (10 pages66), again then now.
But that this was, and could have been possible link to our man's death in mysterious
circumstances then, might seem to have occurred to Norman Baker, the author of this work (the
strange death of Dr Kelly, again), then! And from newspaper reports even (below), and that as
perhaps for Toad again as well? (And we'll preface this with a little more of use to us after the first
break marked [*] then):
'Oral evidence: Taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee [first session] on Tuesday 15 July 2003 67
'Q76 Mr Maples [to Dr Kelly]: You said that your work which went into the dossier was largely history and it
was done in April and May of last year [2002].
Dr Kelly: May and June, I think.
Q77 Mr Maples: Sorry, May and June, and that you were away, either on leave or abroad, in August and early
September. In evidence to us it has become clear that the final form of this dossier was published and
emerged in a first draft, whatever in that context it means, a first draft of this document on 9/10 September
last year [day before 911 that even then] and was published, I think, on 23/24 September. During that period
did you go to any meetings or have any discussions with anybody about what was in there?
Dr Kelly: No. I would have been in the country at that time but I did not participate in any meetings.
Q78 Mr Maples: So after you had written your bit in May and June ---Dr Kelly: I forgot about it. [*]
Q79 Mr Maples: ---- you had nothing more to do with it. I just wanted to ask you a couple more questions
since you are here. When you were a weapons inspector with UNSCOM in Iraq I only got this from
newspaper reports and you can tell me if it is not true you were shown by an Iraqi general or minister a site
in evidence that Iraq had tested a radiological weapon, or sought to test a radiological weapon, a dirty bomb I
suppose in the jargon.
Dr Kelly: On one inspection that I led the Iraqi authorities asked that there should be a special briefing to the
team and at that mission, which was an interview mission, the acknowledgement was made by General Fahi
Shaheen, together with Brigadier Haifa, that they had undertaken experiments with radiological weapons in
1987. I have been to the site since but not to investigate the radiation.
Q80 Mr Maples: You did not go to the site at the time?
Dr Kelly: Not at the time. I have been there since to investigate other claims.
Q81 Mr Maples: Not in 1995 when you were there with UNSCOM?
Dr Kelly: The site I actually went to in September 1995, but not to investigate that aspect.
Q82 Mr Maples: Is your only evidence for this what General Shaheen told you? Did you check that out through
documents or whatever?
Dr Kelly: Subsequently documents were found and there is a document that has been provided to the United
Nations, a document which has been leaked by the Wisconsin Institute [and so the 'newspapers reports' we
suppose then?] and which, unfortunately, is now available on the Internet [as well then].
Q83 Mr Maples: Do you think that is true?
Dr Kelly: Undoubtedly it is true.
Q84 Mr Maples: I do not think it is given much, if any, prominence in the dossier, either in the history or in
current threats, and yet if Iraq had the technology and ability to detonate a dirty nuclear bomb I would have
thought that was pretty significant. I hesitate to say that there is no mention of it in here because I may have
missed it, but I do not think there is.
Dr Kelly: I am not sure it is for me to discuss the dossier.

Wikipedia: On, Project Babylon.

BBC. September Dossier (2002). Outlining the case for war against Iraq. Historical Perspective, Dr Kellys, Pp 33-43.
UK Parliament, publications (17 July, 2003). Oral evidence (taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday 15
July 2003): Witness: DR DAVID KELLY, Special Adviser to the Director, Counter-proliferation and arms control, Ministry of
Defence... Examined.


Q85 Mr Maples: This is your subject.

Dr Kelly: We are talking about an historical aspect of some 15 years ago. Iraq claimed, and I think we believed
them, that that project was terminated in 1988.
Q86 Mr Maples: When you were writing the historical bit of this in May and June, did that feature in what you
Dr Kelly: No.
Q87 Mr Maples: Is there some reason why it was left out?
Dr Kelly: Essentially it had to be a concise account and you cannot include everything.
Mr Maples: A dirty nuclear bomb I would have thought was pretty significant myself...' [Yes minister to this!]

Yes Minister?
Leaving aside the first part up to the break marked [*], 'significant' this well have been, and to this
author Baker again? And he, an MP himself, a Minister off and on, has since, 'tabled a Commons
question' asking for more on this test before this now then? 68 Still that some reach..!
Here, even Nick Rufford, who reviewed this work, wondered why Norman (they are friends,
feathered or what now then?), didn't stop where he could have, well before murder then? He had,
Norman had, admitted that it was 'plausible' that Dr Kelly had taken his own life since... But then
he went on with it anyway... But now, some more reach then, or another brick fitted for some other
reason, by him, Rufford again? And all that would have been needed for another accounting of this
would have been more reading now then. And for us this is a point to be reached for again, simple
as this. And this about ourselves again, or about what?
So, Rufford in his review then, getting to this (and these sort of views shape us some?), then went
on somewhat the same with himself suggesting now, or in his review then, that others with more
responsibility over all this had somehow escaped criticism, but not for long this!
'Sifting through testimony from parliamentary inquiries, which he combines with his own research, Baker
exposes more thoroughly than ever before a government so determined to build a case for going to war
that it either lied or was unable to distinguish truth from fiction. It had to cross a legal threshold of proof
before our own armed forces would agree to fight. Hence Downing Street summoned up intelligence that
was little more than hearsay or downright bogus. The now-infamous 45-minute warning of a chemical attack
came from a dubious single source. The claim that Saddam [an American claim] was shopping for yellow-cake
uranium in Niger was based on forged documents. Saddams mobile smallpox laboratories turned out to be
trailers for filling hydrogen balloons, part of an artillery system sold by Britain to Iraq in 1987 [telling to
Remarkably, as Baker reminds us [this is still a review of a book remember], the protagonists are still in office.
John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, has been promoted to chief of MI6; Geoff
Hoon is now chief whip; Jack Straw, the justice secretary and lord chancellor; and, perhaps most gallingly,
Tony Blair is now a peace envoy. Meanwhile, the Hutton inquiry skewered men who were largely innocent.
Greg Dyke, Gavyn Davies and Andrew Gilligan left the BBC...' 69

Well, sticking to a point now then, the reason for the Hutton inquiry (the concern was over Dr
Kelly's demise, the inquiry headed so even: Report of the Inquiry into the Circumstances
Surrounding the Death of Dr David Kelly C.M.G70). And so is this a thought crime now even?
For this idea that the Hutton inquiry had 'skewered men who were largely innocent' (and so
skewed things then), well that would have been hard to back up, now even (yet it stands), had
Rufford bothered to read a little more of what he was writing about again then. But first some
preface before we get into him again, up to a mark*, for were we to claim that hearings, inquiries
ever get us anywhere (we did wonder before the beginning of, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one),
p.1), well, from the Hutton inquiry, we have actually got closer to points worth incorporating into

See, The Strange Death of David Kelly, by Norman Baker, reviewed by Nick Rufford, The Sunday Times, November 11,
2007. Or, for this: Thursby, Rowena (2007). Hampshire, UK. Blogger:
Hutton, Lord (2004). Report of the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr David Kelly C.M.G:


our general understanding of this matter now...

Perhaps we should even allow now, again even, that as a lot of information can take some time to
reflect upon (more time to reflect upon than might be allowed for in any particular time frame set),
that it might very well be then that this very act, of the collecting together of material, data, if you
like, might very well be what matters in the long run (thinking Giddens again now - that, 'our
understanding of history often tentative, incomplete,' this has ramifications in the long run...
Regardless of our stance, after that, the potential to develop further footnotes for further inquiry
(as in this case now), from this, digitised, with access, and with keywords, this can get us a long
way on, in any case. Or, looking back over the whole affair, this is salutary whatever way then...
Back to Rufford, his review, reading of this, instead now then. And can we develop a footnote to
this even (a wider picture again?). Well, were we to judge again here, or ask if Dr Kelly could ever
have had any basis to say that the September dossier was transformed per se. as per Gilligan's
report on his Today programme now then (and this is a case that still needs to be made), then it
would have had to have been the case, wouldn't it, that our man would also have had to have
seen the finished report and that late in the day, or just before it was published, read out in
parliament, circulated, and it seems he did (and from this inquiry material now!
When Ann Hartley (chair of Dr Kelly's second committee appearance), was giving evidence at the
Hutton inquiry and was pressed, she was pressed to the point where she realised that our man had
indeed seen this material late in the day then, and this was late in the day for her also then!
Here we are looking at this Intelligence and Security committee hearing again then (ISC), and this
was the day after the FAC Committee hearing again then. There where our man had been taken
down some, but had claimed again (as above up till break marked [*]), that he had only ever had
limited input into this dossier anyway then and that only early on, the historical chapter 2. And
yes would have been that his only contribution then, and he would not have been being
particularly deceptive even then. But you can stretch a point, and we can stretch this further even
(from this material again, further reading).
Hartley, not aware of this herself up till then, Dingemans (counsel for the Hutton inquiry), got this
out of her now then. And once again we will preface this up till a break marked [*] again, with
material that will be of use to us as we further develop some footnote ourselves again, from this:
'Hearing Transcripts [Hutton inquiry again]
10 Examined by MR DINGEMANS
11 Q. Can you tell his Lordship your full name?
12 A. Yes, my full name is Winifred Ann Taylor.
13 Q. Your occupation?
14 A. I am Member of Parliament for Dewsbury in
15 West Yorkshire.
16 Q. Are you Chairman of any Committee?
17 A. I am Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee
18 and have been for two years.
5... Were you told
6 anything about the dossier and his involvement with the
7 dossier before he comes to give evidence?
8 A. No. We were able to ask him questions, and we did ask
9 him questions about all of this and I think we have sent
10 a transcript that is available so that you can see
11 exactly what we did question him on.
12 Q. As far as the references on the transcript are
13 concerned, I understand the position is we are not able


14 to publish this until you have published it yourself.

6... we asked him several questions, partly to establish
7 what involvement, if any, he had directly with the
8 dossier, and one of the things that he said on more than
9 one occasion, I think, was that certainly when he was
10 talking, for example, to Andrew Gilligan, he did not
11 regard that as a conversation about the dossier. He
12 regarded it as a conversation about Iraq in which things
13 that were relevant to the dossier came up... [*]

The part of the dossier that he had had some

connection with was the general background part of the
dossier, which I think had been commissioned back from
the Foreign Office side before things were brought
Q. What becomes part 2, the chapter on the history?
A. The background, yes, at a much earlier stage.
Q. That was your understanding on the Committee?
A. Yes. That is what he told us.

1 Q. Did anyone tell you: hang on a minute, that is not
2 entirely right, he was involved on 10th September
3 commenting on growth media and he was involved on
4 19th September [dossier published 24 Sept] at a meeting of DIS staff where the
5 dossier was subject to final comments?
6 A. No. He did not tell us that.
7 Q. I know he did not.
8 A. And nobody else did that...'71

A fine line our man had been walking here then. But it did look (does now anyway), like he might
have got by there, with them? But it would have taken someone with a clear eye to get down the
significance of this, and it did finally then. And though Hutton did not bring this out in his report
finally, there it is still, anyway, in the fine print of the transcript, and so there for any interested in
this, to find.
Talking heads?
On to these conversations (?) now then (mentioned in the first part of that up to the break marked
[*] again). Yet first and on what seems remarkable now (to us), Dr Kelly even being placed
somehow at the centre of all this fuss now? And that when the dossier was so much more
comprehensive than just this 45 minute inclusion?
Back now on to how this other idea came up anyhow? Here, Blair says that this was down to the
Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC),72 the inclusion of this 'other idea' after that then. And so some
nodding of heads over this then, otherwise it wouldnt have got in. And indeed it still is hard to
imagine just Blair and his 2i/c, Alistair Campbell, getting their heads together on this, just the two
of them, and saying this must be in there?
10 July 2003 now, and the BBC have put out a statement promising a revelation that would
transform the debate now. (They are going to name their source then?). Yet this is more a stand-off

Taylor, Winifred Ann (2003). Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, UK, as on 16 July 2003, the day of Dr
Kelly's examination by that committee then. Taylor's evidence given the Hutton Inquiry Wednesday, 27 August 2003 See,
beginning, 163: 9...
See Blair's bio extract, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). (P.2).


between these talking heads now... And so far as the BBC heads should have stopped talking, they
would probably have liked to then. Yet they didn't, so we would like to start again with this? And
with this from Bosch another good witness we have said before, and that her spin is as useful as
anys in all this
The BBC have just put out this statement now then, they would like to transform the debate if they
can now? then. Now there is a conversation between her and Dr Kelly to go over now then (and
once again this is from Hutton again). And this is primarily about the BBC again, and finally ends
with comment about how the BBC would like to transform this present state of affairs into this
debate now then. Transcripts again:
'1 Thursday, 4th September 2003
2 (10.30 am)
4 Examined by MR KNOX
4 'at the end of our
5 conversation [that term, we keep coming across this now then?] on 9th July [day before] he says: well, keep
in touch
6 with me and let me know what happens, vis a vis the
7 press.
8 Q. So you had a few more telephone conversations?
9 A. Yes, we spoke through the next -- about every day during
10 that time.
11 Q. Did you speak about the Gilligan piece at all or about
12 the Gilligan situation?
13 A. Well, I remember talking to him, I think it was the next
14 day [10 July], the BBC had put -- sorry, the MoD had put out
15 a statement [about a person who had come forwards, not naming Dr Kelly, but suggesting that this person
who may be being alluded to by Gilligan, none the less did not believe he was the source of all that Gilligan
was claiming he had been 'told' then] and then the BBC had put out
16 a counterstatement, and then -- sorry, I -- there was
17 a BBC counterstatement and another MoD statement; and
18 I was -- I had two of those. One of the MoD statements
19 and the BBC one -- I do not remember but I could go
20 through -- I was reading through to him, and we kind of
21 were trying to make sense, you know, what were they
22 trying to correlate. It seemed a bit confusing or so,
23 but at one point he did say, because I mentioned in the
24 BBC statement that Susan Watts was brought in there, the
25 BBC statement had mentioned Susan Watts -33
1 Q. Could you stop there for a moment? Could we go to
2 CAB/1/518. We can perhaps see what the statement is.
3 This is a statement issued by the BBC, I think, on
4 9th -- sorry, 517, I think the statement begins.
5 A. Hmm, oh yes, okay.
6 Q. CAB/1/502.
7 A. We might want to go back to that one, but yes.
8 Q. I think you can see, at the foot of the page, there is
9 a reference to Susan Watts. Do you see this?
10 A. Right, yes.
11 Q. Do you recognise this statement as the BBC statement?
12 A. Yes. That was it, yes. I commented to him that notes
13 were deposited in the BBC legal department and, you
14 know, had he seen those, because I do not know what the
15 nature of correspondence was between whatever. And also
16 I mentioned that -- I read that section out to him, and
17 he was very -- somewhat indignant and said: well, what
18 does she have to do with this?



Q. You read that section out?

A. Yes.
Q. Can you clarify which particular section you read out to
A. "What we do know is that Mr Gilligan's notes and account
of what he was told are very similar to the notes of
a conversation Susan Watts, science editor of Newsnight,

1 had with her source which led to the Newsnight reports
2 of June 2 and 4."
3 Q. So you read that to him and he is indignant?
4 A. And he says: what does she have to do with this?'

[Here, after this mark [*] they get to this revelation again]
1 "Richard Sambrook, Director of News, had been told
2 the name ..."
3 And I read this out to him at some point during this
4 time:
5 "While the post held by the source is known also to
6 Greg Dyke, the corporation's Director General ..."
7 I read that to him and I said they are said to have
8 been assured by his knowledge, with one executive
9 boasting that disclosure of his identity would transform
10 the debate...'73

And yes it might have transformed the debate but only if it became known that Dr Kelly had seen
the dossier late in the day. And this had even been missed much later, even after his walking off
from it all, you could say!
Yet before that it is still difficult to imagine the prime minister and Alistair Campbell getting their
heads together and insisting on the inclusion of this? A difficult point to make out of so little, yes.
And so the BBC would have to have it that he told them so? Did anyone on their 'team' say he did
though after this. And all we have on Gilligan is that this was by way of the name game again
(Bosch for this74). And, well, yes they have now then, or Watts said something on this, but now on
how she read this, albeit later though again.75 And that now as a 'gossipy aside' then... Or during
conversation again then, that more imaginable even It has a ring!
And so on to this tape now then, was this just another conversation then, or what else, or the
purpose of this?
On this point, anyway, Dr Kelly did not point particularly towards Campbell over any aspect of this
matter himself. Rather it was Watts who did bring him in to this, and so perhaps as if to see if Dr
Kelly might repeat what before had been this gossipy aside she finally decided that was then.
This conversation, anyway, recorded again, for what it was worth (not much to them as it turned

Bosch, Olivia (2003). Senior Research Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham
House, former UNSCOM inspector (period between 1991-1998): Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Toad relied on this, above (p.14, on). But the original ref is from Bosch's evidence, cited: the fuss about Kelly? (Part one),
p.95, on
Allowing for more tenor, somewhat more tremulous this: "He certainly did not say the 45-minutes claim was inserted
either by Alastair Campbell or by anyone else in government," Watts said, distancing herself from Gilligan's allegation that
Campbell "sexed up" the Iraq dossier.' Next para, here any suggestion that Alistair Campbell may have influenced the late
change the late 2002 dossier she had also dismissed as a 'gossipy aside' of his before this even, allowing further for him
rather than for what may have warranted this. Not a big ask! More conversational again even? Guardian, London (2004).
''Susan Watts. 'BBC Newsnight science editor who spoke to Dr Kelly about the September dossier.'''


up ), was more friendly we would suggest now than anything other than this. And, as it turns out,
was actually about the inspection process to begin with and to end with, but as well more a chat
about Rumsfield (Defence Secretary, US), now - and about whatever Rumsfield might come out
with next now? And at that time Rumsfield was actually suggesting that the WMD may have been
destroyed by the Iraqis before the war even? And Blix, mentioned, would even suggest that
himself now (see Kelly PDF & original report of this attached by himself76). And so some comment
on this then comes out of that. And we could even add some cadence now, as we are supposed to
be talking about whistling, or singing out of tune, or are meant to be now. But did he then, and this
without over stretching any bow?
Watt's rings late, Dr Kelly has just got back home from New York (from transcript 77):
Key-names mentioned/ Speaker then:
Dr Kelly
Susan Watts

Further to go with this now then. Or, Gilligan's release now then, as broadcast, the 'transformed'
claim from before that call now (that programme aired the day before 78), when Dr Kelly was out of
the country then, said to be able to be backed up by Susan Watt's, or what? Yet Watt's version was
said to be mild then, even by Blair's standards...79
Gilligan: 'I have spoken to a British official who was involved in the preparation of the dossier and he told me
that until the week before it was published the draft dossier produced by the intelligence services adds little
to what was already known. He said 'It was transformed the week before it was published to make it sexier'.
The classic example was the statement that WMD were ready for use in 45 minutes. That information was not
in the original draft. It was included in the dossier against their wishes because it wasn't reliable...' 80

Whose wishes again? Was Dr Kelly supposed to be some spokesman now then? If so, why were
there no more to come then? Wording again, more like then. And now, if only that, they are also
saying that Dr Kelly saw the dossier near completion and completed as well next. And that
assertion was also brought up at the FAC (the first committee hearing again), where the question
should perhaps have been when then? And perhaps Hartley wouldnt have been so stumped?

Blix PDF:

Also, the, Report: CNN.Com/WORLD (2003): 'Blix: Iraq unlikely to use chemical, germ weapons: But still a lot of questions,
the chief inspector says.'
And in this Blix says: "And I am among the people who are most curious to know whether they will find any or not..." And
this is on the eve of war even, this? Which leaves us somehow tremulous now? Or talk about even handed even, now?
Watts transcript, this PDF from the Guardian:
The initial Today programme was broadcast on 29 May 2003. Watts broadcast was 2 June, her programme Newsnight
now then, both on the BBC. The recorded discussion above was on 30 May, the day after Gilligans broadcast then...
As in, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). P.3. Wherein we went over this then...
BBC Today Programme (29 May 2003). Andrew Gilligan's assertion that the September 2002 Dossier on Iraq was 'sexedup', so to speak:


But can we make more out of this now then, this conversationalist aspect we mean, more of this
than this transformative effect then? This seems a good approach now then> But is it? This is
picked up from the Guardian now then, and this item followed up in the Mail on Sunday article of 1
June (Dr Kelly had passed on by now), and is about conversation, as we read it again?
'Andrew Gilligan [has] repeat[ed] the allegations in his column in the Mail on Sunday on June 1, [but is now]
giving more details of the secret meeting at a central London hotel with his source [before].
"We started off by moaning about the railways... after about half an hour [after some conversation then?] the
story emerge[ed] that would dominate the headlines [7 days later] for 48 hours... [and that would also] ruin
Tony Blair's Basra away day [in Iraq which it probably did welcome back Tony after that then!]..."' 81

And, after some conversation then, this could be underlined then. And we will, But, another play,
another point, before we pitch on another line and length now then (with this), such bellicosity as
was involved in that dossier again, might have been meant to play in another way also now then?
That Saddam might get the message then, somehow, do all a favour, and step aside? Whos to say
even if it doesnt look that way? Another head game, another day, we could never say not that
Our man's appearance before this Intelligence and Security committee again then (second), from
Hutton inquiry evidence again, as we transform this discussion ourselves now. And can we take
this transformation claim after this way, as a key word then? And that in keeping with what Hutton
might be good for again?
'IRAQ WMD INQUIRY. Wednesday 16 July 2003(13)
Dr DAVID KELLY, MoD. Observers: Brian Wells, MoD. John Clarke, MoD.
ANN TAYLOR: Right Dr Kelly can I welcome you to the committee and start off by
apologising for the fact that we were not able to see you yesterday and I gather that MoD
didn't get all the messages in the right places ; but we are working under a great deal of
pressure and sometimes things take longer than we think and it is quite difficult to assess
these, but we are glad that you were able to come today and our apologies for yesterday .
ALAN BEITH: Could we just know who these serious looking gentlemen behind you
CLERK: One of them is the Director of Proliferation and Arms Control Secretariat who
came and gave evidence to the Committee earlier on this year, on weapons of mass
destruction and the person next to him is PAC 1 i.e. a member of the Proliferation and
Arms Control Secretariat.
MICHAEL MATES: Very sinister indeed!

[Intro above. Now from page 27 on, of 33 pages total. SIC].

[QUIN]: ' in the transcript of Gilligan's - in the final segment he said the
words of his source were that it was transformed in a week before it was published to
make it `sexier', that didn't come from you then?
DR KELLY: The word `transformed' is not something that would have occurred tome
in terms of the document, first of all I had not seen the earlier drafts of it, so I wouldn't
know whether it had been transformed or not, the document itself is a very sober, well
written, there is no emotive language in it, it's factual, I don't see it as being
MICHAEL MATES: But you wouldn't describe it as `sexy'?
DR KELLY: I think the `forty-five minutes' for impact is the only. that's the only bit
that that would be the case.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: But `sexier' is that a word you would use?
DRKELLY: It is a word I would use, I use it on occasions.
JAMES ARBUTHNOT: Is it a word you did use?

Guardian, London (2003). ''What Andrew Gilligan said in the Mail on Sunday. Andrew Gilligan repeats the allegations in
his column in the Mail on Sunday on June 1, giving more details of the secret meeting at a central London hotel with his


DR KELLY: I cannot recall on that occasion.

JAMES ARBUTHNOT: But you might have done?
DR KELLY: It's possible, yes.
ALAN BEITH: What were the words that made you recognise the quotation as being
DR KELLY: Which quotation are we talking about?
ALAN BEITH: You said when you read the transcript again you said you recognised it .
DR KELLY: It was the 30%.
JOYCE QUIN : But in the transcript Gilligan also said that the words of his source says
that it was `transformed' [did he? Before] in your answer you seem to have indicated very clearly that that
did not come from you.
DR KELLY: I don't believe it came from me...'82

Gilligan did use this expression, '30%' (Gilligan's Today programme83), and that is probably what
alarmed Dr Kelly, and led to his writing his letter to his employers then, we can believe that. That
letter then letting on that he had met with Gilligan, that due to his recognising that. And why
would he write this letter then if there was that, or so much, more to it that Dr Kelly thought then.
Or, was Gilligan threatening him?
That said, thought of, it is Gilligan's' word we are supposed to take. Yah, but here is no
documentary evidence. And if Dr Kelly was saying he didn't say this, or at least mean this, then
what on earth was Gilligan thinking, thinking that he could attribute this to him finally then? And
then, especially if Dr Kelly was going to resist, which he already had! The tussle, Blair said, as good
as, was between the BBC heads and he, and it was Campbell's scalp they hoped to get some day,
or someone else's head, but this was turned round then.
The dark arts?
Dr Kelly, before this last committee, finished, saying, that due to his background he found himself
in a strange position at times, or wearing 'different hats' (not a bad heading again?). Rufford said
this anyway, and he should know (in evidence given the Hutton inquiry also, some to come). And a
good source he would be on top of that. And on this, he did sort of let slip that he might have
discussed the dossier with Dr Kelly himself after that came out now also... Though he did not write
about this himself. Would that be proof of that, or not? Whatever, on relations between himself and
Dr Kelly, he would not allow himself to be pressed when giving evidence on anything privy
between himself and Dr Kelly then. And that says something even, that allowing for another day!
Rufford, asked about what sort of understanding Dr Kelly had with his employers now then,
ostensibly the MoD (but not just the MoD, Rufford said), he added that while Dr Kelly was guarded,
at times, 'I always got the impression that he thought that it was important that the public had a
wider understanding of his field [or more knowledge as regards biological and chemical weapons
as they might, or could be deployed, that heading from what we know of his field now then]...'
(Answer to Q.61 ends just there!). Another question now:
(62): '7 Q. Did he ever tell you that before he could speak to you
8 he needed to obtain clearance from anyone?
9 A. He never said that, no, and I would be surprised if he
10 did, because he would [often then] speak to me spontaneously...' 84

Or, in other words he would let his guard down then. In conversation we could call that even! But
what sort of a job would he have had to have had, if he couldn't do this. The less known about kind

From, Hutton Inquiry (2003). Evidence: Dr Kellys evidence to Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).
BBC Today Programme (29 May 2003). Andrew Gilligan's assertion that the September 2002 Dossier on Iraq was 'sexedup', so to speak:
Rufford, Nick (2003). Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry. (61, 5 Q: 'Dr Kelly wears [wore] many different hats...').


of course. On that, asked if Dr Kelly had ever imparted any secrets to him, Rufford said not. And on
that, was the dossier a secret after that? And, well obviously not, because it was out and published
(for Saddam to read even), before that!
That it had been updated late - well that might have just been an observation now then that one
could just state? Still Rufford did not state that, even late. On a different page we could say, or that
Rufford didn't see what could be made of that so late? And while one could imagine the pressure of
keeping that late change secret, there would only be some pressure there if one had been told to.
For then one might suspect the motives for being told so. And so there would be a story then after
that. But without that, not!
This sense that Dr Kelly did have a free hand then, that he wasn't overly bound, why he said
almost the same himself, and before that FAC (the first) committee, again:
'Q176 Mr Pope: When you met Mr Gilligan on 27 May did you feel at the time that you were doing anything
untoward, that you were breaching the confidence that is expected of you within your job?
Dr Kelly: No. I think it has been agreed by the Ministry of Defence there was no security breach involved in
the interactions I had.
Q177 Mr Pope: Do you think, in your experience, that there is a widespread culture in the MoD and, perhaps,
in the intelligence and security services of people speaking in an unofficial capacity to journalists? Certainly
the impression I got from Mr Gilligan [before then, he had appeared before them and this could have been
got out of Rufford just as well*] was that that was a widespread culture that journalists would have a number
of contacts in the MoD or in the security services. Is that your experience?
Dr Kelly: It is not my experience but I think you have to recognise that I have a strange background in the
sense that I operated for ten years internationally interacting with the international press and was well-known
to the press and had quite a lot of contact. I think I am somewhat unusual in terms of the people who have an
interest in that situation [his field]...'85

This could have been got out of Rufford, we have just said that (just then*). And more probably still
could. And Dr Kelly had told him that Gilligan hadnt got this out of him as well. But Rufford was
not sure about this, as Dr Kelly also denied meeting with him, to him, then - when he asked him
about this, over the phone, he said. And this seemed 'a slightly curious answer' on the part of Dr
Kelly to Rufford we might remark as well then. And he said as much as this, to counsel questioning
him, after this then - as, Dr Kelly would have known, 'in one sense [that] if he had spoken to
Andrew Gilligan that he could not be the source [then, of this]...' But guarded he was known to be,
Rufford said so. Not guarded enough though we might think. Or of even stranger things after that?
Degrees of separation?86
And should we keep these? And obviously at times yes. And be guarded. But how do these actors
get round these things, and well since this fourth estate notion came in being? And that no doubt a
difficult act also now, keeping up to date... But their role is meant to affect the dealings of the
state again now then, by keeping their arm up their backs also (well, since Edmund Burke again 87).
And that no doubt a difficult balancing act affecting that. And a bit of a dark art also, at that Nor
is it so that there wouldnt be some blow back.
Clarifying (sounds like?), the entitlement of the government so far as they could inform this dossier

UK Parliament, publications (17 July, 2003). Oral evidence (taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday 15
July 2003): Witness: DR DAVID KELLY, Special Adviser to the Director, Counter-proliferation and arms control, Ministry of
Defence... Examined.
There are not many of these degrees of separation between us, though we sort of know this. And this is not just folklore
now, or some feeling, according to researchers Eric Horvitz and Jure Leskovec now: 'To me, it was pretty shocking. What
we're seeing [in 2007] suggests there may be a social connectivity constant for humanity. People have had this suspicion
that we are really close. But we are showing on a very large scale that this idea goes beyond folklore...' Horvitz,
Washington Post. The idea, that this might be so, was first put up by John Guare in his 1990 play, Six Degrees of
Separation, which while he was American, won Londons Olivier Award for Best Play when put on there. No wonder why?
'Proof! Just six degrees of separation between us: After checking 30 billion electronic messages, Microsoft researchers say
the theory stands up.'
See, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one), p.9, again.


themselves, is worth imparting then, and so some blow back. And the Hutton report came down on
this in the end, deciding that the government did have a right, despite any other advice (such as
Dr Kelly may have supplied even), to add that last part to the dossier, and to do that now no
matter when, even. But upon what course does that also chartus (though we arent British), we
'The dossier was prepared and drafted by a small team of the assessment staff of the JIC [Joint Intelligence
Committee]. Mr John Scarlett [not yet head of MI6, not until 2004, but close to Campbell it is said, at the time
of the drafting of that dossier slated by Rufford for that], the chairman of the JIC, had the overall
responsibility for the drafting of the dossier.
The 45-minutes claim was based on a report which was received by the SIS from a source which that service
regarded as reliable [at that time]. Therefore, whether or not at some time in the future the report on which
the 45-minute claim was based on is shown to be unreliable, the allegation reported by Mr Gilligan on 29 May
2003 that the government probably knew that the 45-minute claim was wrong before the government
decided to put it in the dossier was an allegation which was unfounded [we'd allow that]...
As the dossier was one to be presented to, and read by, Parliament, and the public, and was not an
intelligence assessment to be considered only by the government, I do not consider that it was improper for
Mr Scarlett and the JIC to take into account suggestions as to drafting made by 10 Downing Street and to
adopt these suggestions if they were consistent with the intelligence available to the JIC [at that time]...' 88

So the government could add to that, or make suggestions at least as to drafting, an admission of
sorts that, and third hand. Mind you the key-words for us there (mind you we have inserted them
there) - are 'at that time' aren't those these? And with months to go this claim could have been
checked. And, if found wrong, then this re factored again. But at what cost to the getting together
of heads again, in time to put a stop to that. Or to what, the momentum up anyway. And indeed if
the focus had been on that, and if Dr Kelly had been so much against a full on war, full stop, then
you would have had a motive for his whistle blowing before the war then! But not much of one, for
so much later on, then. But was he on his own in this, even if he did or did now? Probably not!
Keeping up with this, that not a full stop, what the BBC never did have, really, was an honest
enough story to begin with on this? Which was why, really, they wanted to 'transform the debate'
(that term again now), if they could then. And in effect Hutton found them out also now, and so he
left this for us to see this, without directed us to even. And all they had, now, if they couldn't move
on a little themselves, was that as Dr Kelly had talked to Susan Watts - they had this taped, ergo
they thought they could continue to say that he did say what 'we say he said' to Gilligan as well
then! And that some huffing and bluffing there. But not enough to bring any house down, and
certainly not on any other heads than theirs! (But it might have got close? But kept close since if
This would lead finally to the BBC's Chairman Gavyn Davies and its director-general, Greg Dyke
bowing out after Hutton didnt hand them down a lifeline then. For after he'd heard it all, a minutes
silence was what he decided upon finally, for there but for the grace of whomever, he may have
thought seen before, maybe go us?
Enough said? Well, almost after that! For after that Blair then let on that he was shocked that the
BBC heads had felt they had to resign now? Another load of hype that also now (in type). Though
curiously, Rufford again, well he didn't think they should have either after that either?
We are left with this then, more fair to Blair than we should be being (being a writer type), we
know, leaves us with this then now that this was worth a go then on Gilligan's part, and with
what Dr Kelly was said to have come out with before then, no matter whether it may have been an
aside or not. For that would play on its own, anyway, and then who knows who else might have
broken cover over this story then. For it must have been going the rounds, those few degrees of
separation, again...

First sighted, cited, in the fuss about Kelly? (Part one) (the beginning of, Blair bio there...).


Another brick in the wall?

Perhaps what the BBC should have asked for (trailering off now), was for a conversation instead
now then? And that instead of threatening a transformation of the debate any day now then!
And indeed, it is evident that Dr Kelly never shied away from this sort of thing, himself. Or could
be? But is that all that there is to this, that he never shied away from this sort of thing, himself.
Thats not really bourne out
Generally, if we were to describe relationships where there is give and take, and where there is
mutual respect shown, we would describe them as reciprocal in nature then. And that is a term
that describes an organising factor in human relationships. And does this not go back a long way
now, to ultimately our very beginnings even. And is this not descriptive of how we forged
relationships where none had previously been?
Still, Dr Kelly said as much as that also now. And as for Gilligan now, their last meeting had been
beneficial to him then (he said this). And by that we don't mean there was payment either, there
has never been any hint of that since (and that not in any media, nor between any lines anywhere
out there). And so then, we have said just above, we have the curious (not strange then),
position Dr Kelly was in then. Or not so curious now then, if we adopt this tack and allow more for
that. For it seems these relationships were fundamentally important to him. And that in that he
didnt want to pit them to risk (well come to that), even? But, for some beginning again, are they
fundamentally important to all of us now? Can we get this out of that as well now?
So far as we might substantiate this idea, and so we could get more out of this, Dr Kelly did say
something like this (weve said already again). Before that we have even as an instance, Rufford
even, having quoted him (mentioned his name in an article), why that mystified Dr Kelly also now
somehow? And it seemed a strange thing to do to him? But still not quite like betrayal to him
somehow (Hutton: Boschs evidence again, 7:2289).
And here, all we are getting at now is how Dr Kelly saw these relationships then. And if that seems
a stretch, we have at least that then, as an instance of this. Or, a different interpretation of their
relationship (same type of thing), and this a direction we can take, and indeed Rufford may have
seen that like that, a different take as well, or up a creek without some understandings like this?
But here, back to this, for it is Dr Kelly's thinking we are still interested in here. And indeed, Dr
Kelly, when questioned by that committee again (the FAC), about meeting Gilligan, said that
something like that principle was at stake himself again. In this (below), Dr Kelly emphasises the
term conversation ad infinitum himself (and which we will desist with underlining, except for two
last instances perhaps now?). And while we may not quite have got quite the right words or terms
in use yet, yet there don't seem many other words or terms left to get:
'Q48 Mr Olner: Mr Gilligan's article in the Mail on Sunday of 1 June states that the location of your meeting
was a central London hotel and that you were waiting for Mr Gilligan when he got there. At whose request did
that meeting take place between you and Mr Gilligan?
Dr Kelly: Mr Gilligan.
Q49 Mr Olner: Any idea why he requested it?
Dr Kelly: For the reasons that I offered to the Chairman. Sorry, which one are we talking about?
Q50 Mr Olner: The one on 22 May.
Dr Kelly: [Well the] outcome of the [last] meeting I had with him in February was that he would provide me
with feedback from his visit to Iraq, since I am interested in Iraq, interested in other people's perspectives on
Iraq and the process. That was the reason for meeting with him, to get feedback on that visit.
Q51 Mr Olner: Was this not a two-way process, that you wanted also to communicate other things to Mr

Bosch, Olivia (2003). Senior Research Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham
House, former UNSCOM inspector (period between 1991-1998): Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.


Dr Kelly: No.
Q52 Mr Olner: It was simply a journalist fishing for information that you had got and you wanted to give to
Dr Kelly: No, it was an occasion on which I expected to get information about Iraq, about some of the
personalities that he either had encountered or attempted to encounter, his experiences during the war itself
and the experiences he had with Iraqi minders when he was acting as a journalist before the war.
Q53 Mr Olner: Obviously you have read Mr Gilligan's accounts of the meeting, including the evidence that he
gave to this Committee. Is there anything in Mr Gilligan's accounts that you dispute?
Dr Kelly: I think you would have to ask me the specific question.
Q54 Mr Olner: You have obviously read it.
Dr Kelly: I have read it.
Q55 Mr Olner: Is there anything there that suggests Mr Gilligan was perhaps being careful with the truth?
Dr Kelly: It is not a factual record of my interaction with him, the character of it, which is actually difficult to
discern from the account that is presented there. It is not one that I recognise as being conversations I had
with him. There was one part of it which alerted me to that, which was the comment about the 30 per cent
probability of Iraq actually possessing chemical weapons, that is the sort of thing I might have said to him.' 90

And indeed on that, that last answer there does sit right with the 30% estimate that did come out
during Gilligan's news report. And so Dr Kelly did recognise this, yet that may not have alarmed
him so much so... For it was hardly inflammatory talk, that. Even Olner asked him (Q51) here, was
this a two way process did he feel?
Q56 Mr Olner: Really Mr Gilligan's story was basically about drafts of dossiers being changed, being "sexedup". Did you infer to Mr Gilligan in any way, shape or form that he might have misrepresented what you said?
[He could have said that there was no other meeting after this, but said again...]
Dr Kelly: My conversation with him was primarily about Iraq, about his experiences in Iraq and the
consequences of the war, which was the failure to use weapons of mass destruction during the war and the
failure by May 22 to find such weapons. That was the primary conversation that I had with him...'91

And this could sound like reciprocity now then. Yet are we being taken in somehow ourselves now?
But that, as observed by social anthropologists, is taken, this is, and as a term, as some sort of
cover all for exchange. A safe way and one that extends relationships after that. (Except if you
were some native quite settled somewhere once, about to be colonised, and so being offered
beads, and well you might not think this so great later on, or on reflection even, Durkheims (well
not his solely), term again!). Still, as a concept, this is said to be able to help us understand human
relationships, and how they work, at a most basic level. And indeed without some means, like this,
we never would have been able to relate. And as scattered about as we were no doubt once, we
might also have been very wary once, why we are wary enough even now even..!
Forms: There are forms of this! One such form of this is the 'moral' form still. And that is given to
forms of contact where persons might reciprocate towards others along the lines of what may be
thought of as morally appropriate even, them having offended somehow. Sticks and stones might
even be morally appropriate? Well!
But a more 'balanced' form of reciprocity describes any occasion when the relationship between
two 'exchanges' is more informal than that as well - with the expectation of some return more or
less along the same lines to what you give out! Our lord, our liege, would be an obligatory
exchange older climes. An expression for this in the Japanese language even, would be the
common term 'sumimasen' still now! Which apart from meaning many things, also means 'this [or
that what is between us], it will not end...' Not ever as well!
Breaking this concept down further though, there are recognised positive and like negative aspects
attached to this concept as well. Whereas with the 'positive' form the inclination is, or would be, to
give back in a co-operative manner as well; conversely with the 'negative' form the inclination is,
or would be, to 'get back' at someone else. Ah, but the rub here would be, that with that form

UK Parliament, publications (17 July, 2003). Oral evidence (taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday 15
July 2003): Witness: DR DAVID KELLY, Special Adviser to the Director, Counter-proliferation and arms control, Ministry of
Defence... Examined.


there is little expectation of any gain after

That this reciprocity is a factor in this can be exemplified in all this it seems from looking at Hutton
again now! This may allow us to link this in another like manner now? Well, we think this - with Dr
Kelly showing some exasperation over some of this in a very like negative manner now, and then
he backs off from this even. Realising himself there was no gain in any action like this now. And it
is this which has alarmed that very good witness Bosch again then! But first, this again, from the
FAC committee appearance again, where Dr Kelly is claiming his very good reason for why he met
with Gilligan again then:
'Q41 Chairman: What did you think the motives were of Mr Gilligan and others in seeking to contact you?
Dr Kelly: Are we talking specifically of Mr Gilligan?
Q42 Chairman: Yes.
Dr Kelly: The approach by Mr Gilligan was to consult with me before his visit to Iraq as a broadcaster. He
wished to know certain aspects of Iraq, the UNMOVIC inspection process, some of the personalities that are
associated with the programme should he encounter them, some of the sites that are involved in the
programme. You may remember that just before the war the Iraqi Government was inviting journalists to visit
the sites so they could see, according to Iraqi claims, that there was no illicit activity occurring...' 92

And yes that, perhaps, is a wee bit pat, we've said. But then we do have an example of this
'unbalanced' form of reciprocity that we can add to that now. And that as evidenced by Bosch
again, or on that last morning when she talked to him on the phone again. And something has
plainly again struck a chord with her now on this. Though not looking for this she would not have
seen this this way before this! And even now she is quietened down (but as weve said, a very
good witness this):
Hearing Transcripts
1 Thursday, 4th September 2003
2 (10.30 am)
4 Examined by MR KNOX
16 Q. On 17th July, Thursday, did you talk to him that day?
17 A. Yes. He telephoned me about mid morning. I think it
18 was around 10.45 or so, but the telephone records may
19 show me perhaps. And he telephoned me because he was
20 preparing a list of journalists, which he had to do for
21 the Foreign Affairs Committee. And he asked me to help
22 him with the name of a journalist that he thought
23 I would know. It was someone he met a long time ago and
24 had moved on. I was able to help him with that name.
25 He was telling me he was preparing a list. He seemed in
1 a quandary because he says: well -- we were talking
2 about this, and he said: well, I think I am just going
3 to mention all of them. It was a tone of voice I never
4 really heard him speak about.
5 Q. What was that tone of voice?
6 A. It was kind of like a spite or revengefulness: I am just
7 going to list them all, kind of thing. I never heard
8 him be like that. Almost immediately he would call back
9 and in a matter of seconds he then came back and he
10 says: but -- then he said: but not all of those would be
11 relevant to the -12 Q. The question?
13 A. The question that he had to deal with.
14 LORD HUTTON: Sorry, did he telephone you back again or is
15 this the same -92



16 A. The same conversation. I am saying in the sentence

17 where he expressed this unusual feeling, in a few
18 seconds he changed -- he seemed to have come away from
19 it. Of course, I am -- that is the -- I felt that at
20 the time, but in light of some of the evidence given by
21 the professor several days ago, this also heightened
22 me -- heightened my attention to it...'93

In Hawton's evidence, and to which Bosch was referring to there, there was mention of 'revenge'
sometimes as motivation for such an act? But, we might wonder, when all this comes down to one
point, don't we all form little clubs anyway at times? And some associations we form for some time
to come even, as well. All of us now, still.
'But then [Bosh again after that little reverie] he seemed to have come away from it' Which may
mean that Bosch may have thought that this was some moment then, when he decided to even?
And Hawton had said he might have as well, the day before? And that on the back of Absalom's
evidence given before Hawton gave his now then? But given the same day anyway? And that
evidence was that Dr Kelly had seemed cheerful enough when she ran in to him anyway, 94 and
with that mystifying to most, but back to that, Bosch most likely included at that. Later Hawton
would even pick up on that, without being asked, coming out with this now - that persons may
appear at peace having made that decision in any case. Or in other words, enough of that again!
Some balance then, for having read around Hawton again, we can see that 'this', as an idea, can
be driven by a whole set of circumstances, yes! And he was very informative so we have to give
him this? Hence we should be cautious also then, yes! But while this is more than opinion out of
him being cautious is also common sense...! And we have no wish to be anything other than this,
Yet a discordant note out of this again now, lest we get too far away from why this occurs again
and again such as he worries that it may even, then. And here we are getting away from personal
reasons for this. For we could say, now, that this sort of thing, more generally, is thought by the
likes of Durkheim again, for one as well. And that would be along with a whole lot of other
behaviours so far as we can tell as well! Getting back to that!
And while we sort of got to that point before, they do say nowadays that these other behaviours
that are noticed more now, are also due to more reporting now also. And, well now there is less
reporting of this and that a point as well! Yet we certainly didn't have clusters of 'this' less talked
about act in small towns before now And that is a sort self-reporting on its own as well! Though
we did have clusters of witch burning once? But that was more a Protestantism sort of thing once
wasnt it again. And that sort of Durkheim think again.95
And if we did just randomly come upon a cluster of persons being burnt in this way now, well we
wouldn't understand it would we now? Nor that they were 'witches' even. Wed have to be told
this. And this we might then put down to a panic of mind ourselves? As individually, if we took
them aside, we would be struck by how much alike us they seemed as well. Apart from what they
were doing that is.
And of course if in appearance they seemed different to us, then we might go along with this, and
leave them to it then. Yet still if they seemed like us, the answer after that would be to set some

Bosch, Olivia (2003). Senior Research Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham
House, former UNSCOM inspector (period between 1991-1998): Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). (P.15).
The Telegraph, London (2014). Dominic Selwood: How Protestantism fuelled Europe's deadly witch craze.


better example for them if we didn't want to see any more of this. But of course we would have to
be in numbers to affect this. Otherwise we might be next... And then this would still be going on
until there were no good doers like ourselves left. Nor women then some places even? And if so we
would all begone... then.
Something just as chilling now is this. For on the back of this begone term, wondering about its
origins even, we came across this? And then we were left wondering if a fictional work penned post
911 and entitled Begone Demons, by Saddam Hussein himself now, may ever have crossed Bushs
desk? For in this work Saddam writes of two towers even, yet not that they have been brought
down, yet..? But tantalising this, and maybe taunting even? For we can add to that that we also
know that incoming leaders are wont to get to know their foe, and will read almost anything given
them so as to understand them? And, here, othing set in stone here of course. But, this may have
made the post? Or, wed not rule it out. And there is even a rude comment penned underneath the
review below (and that underlined by ourselves now96). That at least!
It is not things in themselves which trouble us, but our opinion of things...
And this is from Epictetus now97 And perhaps that should be set in stone (with more reasoning
than with the above), and so on its own, and now even then, and that after some 1500 years
since, since this! As that, if we were familiar with that type of thinking, could have cut through
quite a lot of this And so for the lot of us now. And that might well be? But that leaving nothing
for us to write about now. And we do like to right our selves.
And had Dr Kelly been able to have held onto something like this himself, and so on to his previous
position then (as before the FAC committee again), with that being just that this was just a position
he found himself to be in now then (and had no doubt been in before, been rattled we mean), then
there would be less of this. And less all round perhaps, again? Nor would Dr Kelly have been
affected particularly in any material sense that we can tell. And, anyway, we can all make little
adjustments if we have to along the way. Or in other words he could have been rolling with this, so
a 'cause' is rolled up in this? But can a cause be rolled out of that now somehow?
That being quite some point this, before, if only we could but hold on to that now, now following
this herself the writer and psychologist Dorothy Rowe in the New Scientist magazine (200598), led
with this in an item entitled: 'Human beings are actors, not puppets,' now, and pointed this out
following that, that,
' in other words [out of that], what determines our behaviour is not what happens to us, but how we
interpret what happens to us [that!]...'99

Begone, Demons, also translated as Get Out You Damned, or Get Out of Here, Curse You! is Saddam Hussein's fourth and
last novel. It is a fictional novel, with political metaphor... thought to have been written in anticipation of the 2003 Iraq war
in 2002 or 2003...
Overview: Begone, Demons tells the story of a tribe living on the Euphrates River for more than 1500 years, which is
invaded by another tribe, but win the war in the end. The main part of the book focuses on three men: Isaac, Joseph, and
Mahmoud, who on her grandfather Abraham grew up as children. Isaac is a villain and traitor, while the other two, honest
and good are hard. Later Isaac leaves and moves to a country west of the Dead Sea. There he joins forces with a greedy
Roman governor, making money together at the expense of the local population. To keep their riches, they must eventually
build two towers...
Publication: Raghad Hussein [sic this not picked up yet] had tried to publish the novel in Jordan [post 911 picked up
there then?]...' The work was finally published in 2006: Hussein, Saddam. Begone, Demons. Published under the title,
Devil's Dance ("Akuma no Dance"). Tokyo, Tokuma Shoten Publishing (2006). Here we have relied on,Wikipedia: On,
Begone, Demons.,_Demons/ for this...
Greek sage and philosopher (AD c. 55 135), born a slave in present day Turkey, lived in Rome until his
banishment, ended his life in
Greece. Of the Stoic type.
The New Scientist (2005). 'Human beings are actors, not puppets.' (Magazine issue 2485, p.21).


Following this Rowe explaining herself, was having a dig at modern science and psychiatry it
seems, the New Scientist magazine even, an outlet for this sort of puppetry thinking (indeed we
have plenty of back issues with that sort of thinking in ourselves that we would take issue with).
For Rowe though, regardless of this new enlightenment, a more normal disruption to a persons
thinking would still be down to what it always has been now to some guilt, some grief even,
some changing circumstance, some mistake made, consequences of which may be manifesting
somehow, some idea taken on strongly even?
Yet now some client may be met with the suggestion that something other may be underlying
some position they are in then, instead... Yet,
forty years ago there were only a handful of mental illnesses, and relatively few people were seen as being
manipulated by a mental illness [then! Though once there would have been 'suspicions', suspicious minds
Now there are innumerable mental disorders created by psychiatrists. In fact the most recent edition of the
bible of psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), covers everyone. If every
other diagnosis fails, you've always got personality disorder not otherwise specified. Psychologists use the
DSM to label people, but they like to pop people into boxes called traits sociability, curiosity, extroversion
and the like. Do you do what you do because you have x amount of sociability, y amount of curiosity and z
amount of extroversion? Unfortunately most popular magazines and national newspapers, New Scientist
included, help perpetuate this puppet/agent mistake. So a story about technology presents humans as agents
making decisions and acting on them, while one about mental health downgrades humans to puppets. People
suffering from mental illness are described as manipulated by something acting in or on their bodies...' 100

And this is similar to an age old thing really. Or, in any case, the search is on for this, newly seen,
some rush to this Rowe makes this out of that now. And some case that is as well. And, even if it is
only latterly so, it could easily be made the case that this is since Darwin and all the et als again
now. Or since sciences big leap then, post this now! And, well, the et als would account for that
forty year leap latterly at least?
Which could still lead us, in any case (our Rowe again now), back to the way we operate now then!
And with that the first question Rowe says she always asks in any case herself! Yet even before
that, how we operate would be a necessary pointer to what we believe in wouldn't it now as well?
And so then to how hard we might be holding on to some outmoded or unhelpful opinion even, or
on to some thing (Epictetus again). And eminently sensible this! And in another item Rowe
suggests that all this talk of mental illness is unsuitable even!
[In another item,] 'Rowe prefers to speak of "mental distress" [instead], and rejects biological explanations for
depression [even]. "All the evidence has gone," she says, citing a recent study suggesting "life events" are
what trigger depression in almost every case. "What we know now from research is that people don't
suddenly become psychotic or depressed out of the blue, there's always a disaster that they suffer, and it's
not always a disaster that other people can see is a disaster. It's a private personal one, but it always
precedes depression, psychosis, obsession, mania, all of [it even?]." 101

Which may or may not be but which is relevant here now in that a decision to end your life might
be a sudden thing as well (well in this case at least now). Here, going on with this instance, we are
also bearing in mind that Hawton saw no evidence of any 'mental illness' at all with Dr Kelly now.
Which is quite some finding as well! And that is as in Hutton's findings also now! 102 Which is quite
some finding in itself as well, for it points somehow? But it takes some reasoning to get. Otherwise
it is just part of the judgement now...
The short answer for how we operate again then now? For we might get more out of this now,
thinking again like that ourselves? And, well the short answer would be of course be that we

The rest of this: Rowe, Dorothy.
In, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). (P.12).


operate according to how we've become more accustomed to somehow. But the longer answer
might also be that we operate within a society of sorts of course, and which has its own ideas
about how we should act as well now. Somewhere Rowe says, the crisis is always between the
individual and his or her society as well. And as well as that, she means this is moreso now also. 103
But here Rowe is coming to something more familiar (ironically maybe), to us as well. For,
we, 'interpret what goes on [that as well] and make choices usually without becoming fully conscious, just
by putting our interpretations into action [now. With], the interpretations we choose always aimed, at least in
part, at holding ourselves/ our meaning structure together.' 104

And here we could even see negative reciprocity lurking Yet our meaning structure some bug
bear now then? And, well it might be here and there (obviously no great point that). But another
point, moving along, back with this now, pertinent perhaps somehow or, now, was Dr Kelly
himself now, ever, in his interactions with some of these persons aforementioned now, ever fully
cognisant then that he'd been giving anything away like that now? And, actually, looked at again,
back at what may have been discussed odd times between these persons, his friends,
countrymen, his letting on that the dossier he had some input into, had had a late change he
didnt agree with now, well this might have been quite revelatory in itself even! Given that he
would have thought little of it himself by then, or to the when', now?
And as to when we have so far that Dr Kelly may have proffered this to Gilligan, but Gilligan said
this now! And, we've never quite been able to rule this out, ourselves? And a difficulty there has
always been that we have been relying on Boschs good name a little there. Or, our impression of
her. And whose counter point has always been that this came up by way of a 'name game' played
between Dr Kelly and Gilligan, that he said this then! 105
But with other input now, that might help us understand why the name game was played at all
then? If we can set something other beside this, out of all this now then? And we might... For we
have had it from Watt's later (and this was a late inclusion into this work - a footnote it seemed
just worth inserting for any searcher of key words in this work at some later stage now), that what
Dr Kelly may have proffered to Gilligan, he may have, nay did actually, proffer to Susan Watts
before then now?
But then (of this later), she said that she took that as more of a 'gossipy aside' (that the footnote
we included late now - footnote 75, p. 33), herself then now. Still this was before her colleague
Gilligan came out with this name game again then now. Played another way now, that may have
been how now, plays better again, and so we can believe him now even, or see now how perhaps,
he just found himself to be in this position that he just found himself to be in again then now then.
That just the thing, or not, now! But this no great thing we don't think now. For while this may be
how Dr Kelly got into that position now, it is still not the why for his last act.
But to round off with Rowe again now, we are not just subject to our bio-chemical strings again:
But, of course the complexity and the individuality of our choices make studying people very difficult [still so
now], surely from here on in, research (and treatment) not based on this understanding of ourselves as agent
[and actors who make dodgy choices and or hold on too hard to dodgy opinions] is a complete and utter
waste of time [isnt it then] now. o'106

This is a view that follows on from the above and that (this is commentary): at the heart of Rowe's thought is the
idea that depression is a crisis in the relationship between the individual and the world...' This is Durkheimian, we would
say (if there was such a term), or put it like that anyway! Rowe, Dorothy.
The New Scientist (2005). 'Human beings are actors, not puppets.' (Magazine issue 2485, p.21).
Toad relied on this, above, p.14. But the original ref is from Bosch's evidence, cited in, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one),
p.95 on, again!
The New Scientist (2005). 'Human beings are actors, not puppets.' (Magazine issue 2485, p.21).


Horses for causes?
And here, after that, and as regards that last act of Dr Kelly's again then now, there Hawton
thought that Dr Kelly may not have been comfortable with this public exposure as well after all
that. But that can't be the next reason for that last act in itself either can it be now. For that sort of
exposure was almost over by then. Indeed he could have been well out of it toute suite, back in
Iraq as we've said. Minders all about and all!
Yet being at the centre of things for a while is not the same as just being part of things again then
now then. Yet there had been a long build up to this, longer than allowed for from our reading
about this now. This position, suddenly visited, it would be difficult to keep your perspective
entirely free we would agree with that now, or to keep your faith in whatever way you may have
up till then, which leaves much 'ado' about opinions still then now, and how we hold on to them,
get a hold on them, doesn't it the noo
'Einstein said, this world is a strange madhouse. Currently every coachman and every waiter is debating
whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation. The quote
comes from a letter Einstein wrote three weeks after a huge rally in Berlin against relativity, in which
"Einstein was denounced as a fraud and scientific philistine." Despite experiments showing that light was
bent by the gravitational pull of the sun, exactly as his revolutionary theory had predicted ten years earlier,
"a right-wing rabble-rouser" named Paul Weyland attacked him and his theory of relativity, and won
widespread support...'
And so summarizing a German book on this phenomenon, van Dongen now writes (having recalled that now)
that, '...anti-relativists were convinced that their opinions were being suppressed [even then]. Indeed, many
believed that conspiracies were at work that thwarted the promotion of their ideas. The fact that for them
relativity was obviously wrong, yet still so very successful, strengthened the contention that a plot was at
Sounds familiar? A new theory by a scientist overturns conventional thinking, and rightly predicts what never
would have been guessed before. In Einstein's time, that was the concept that gravity could bend light; in our
time, this is the concept that invisible amounts of trace gases will force climate change.'
[And further, van Dongen noted following that, that,] Conspiracy theories tend to do well in uncertain times:
they create order in chaos. [And then:] 'True, but as Janis Dickinson predicted in her paper last year on
climate change denial, it's also true that as fear rises -- in "uncertain times" -- so too do people cling more
tightly to their existing beliefs, defend them more fiercely, and attack those they see as enemies more
bitterly. In his time, Einstein cancelled an opportunity to address a scientific congress in l922, fearing he
might be assassinated (as was his friend Walther Rathenau, another prominent Jewish liberal). In our times,
the leading proponent of climate change science, James Hansen, has been repeatedly threatened with
violence, albeit mostly by, yes, crackpots. [Finishes:] There's nothing new under the sun except, perhaps,
increasing amounts of greenhouse gases...'107 [And that the subject of this item].

And all this, really, is just some cause for pause, here, for this is not new... But this was new now.
Well back then it was, relatively speaking again. The idea then that suicide was but a marker also
now, and of a type of society besides this? Here, with this, Durkheim got his start, and arguably
this was sociologies big start also, and this another view of ourselves, distinct from another as
well. But what a time to pick a fight!
But did Durkheim do any better with these question or should he just be fitted in along sides these
questions now? We are having difficulty fitting him in with this as well. Or with running his ideas
alongside this instance of suicide? And we thought they might fit in somehow? We shouldnt be
surprised this is difficult we suppose now?


Sullivan, Andrew. Garman, Joss (2010): Once they denied relativity... On physicist Joergen van


The nearest we could get, we find now, if we could allow that if Dr Kelly died of something then
(bear with us), and of whatever on Durkheim's terms then, would be this. But we could only get
near with this if we could think of his altruistic form as akin to altruism now then, and which we
would link more customarily to reciprocity (already seen and so you can see how this might appeal
Yet Durkheim didn't quite mean this. Rather he removed any sense of any 'good' you may like to
do just for the sake of it - substituting that good then for the overall good of a group instead. Here
we could bring in this Seppuku again then, but now it is essentially a defensive measure. And that
as an example like that may inspire others to great acts as well then. Their natural caution for just
themselves thrown, you could say, to the wind. And with this good for the fighting spirit of the
whole group even now. And you might, probably would have, joined in venerating others that have
gone on before you, evoking this great spirit, a higher purpose as well! for
So in this case, as an example now, this could have been an altruistic act, if this was to benefit or
inspire others now, not altruism, strictly speaking, as that wouldnt cut it now. And, actually, after
that, suicide generally cancels life insurance policies even doesnt it now, and so we can cancel
this out of that realm now.
This points up, makes you think, of anomie of course as well now. Here where you might get out of
step, and especially with that sort of thinking just there. But can we even apply that idea here
now? For Durkheim's finding was there was less suicide in wartime in any case then. And which is
as good a way of saying that a feeling of being in a similar situation would be as good a reason as
any for continuing now then.
Indeed, sticking with Durkheim strictly again here, you could definitely say that Dr Kelly had been,
and would still have been expecting to serve in some capacity himself again now. Once the
opposition in Iraq was brushed aside that is. Which it was with the efficiency of a breeze.
The Rockingham group connection fits well with this (above, p.14), this pre-war survey group,
somewhat secret, his interest while part of that group after multiple deployments in Iraq, still being
in the evidence of programmes all along (Bosch on his emphasis as regards this numerous places.
But see, p,93, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one), where his role before was more defined)! And as to
why these werent deployed (apart from not existing), why Blix even thought they might not have
been, as PR of some sort again? (As above again footnote 76, p,33).
And so we don't get much sense of how this act could come out of some of this? Except this: that
with this sense (his sense of this anomie), we could allow now for the somehow that Durkheim's
mind worked instead now? For he may have seen that with this drop in suicide during wartime
then (not amongst returning US vets currently we know), some opportunity for some math then?
Or that you could measure how well some type of society was doing by these numbers. You could,
thus, measure integration, that protective factor, again, by this.
Two terms down (well three if we add in reciprocity which might not quite begone yet), nor could
we say that egoism, or sole self-interest, is particularly in evidence here? Or that this could explain
this step taken that day? Indeed we have skirted this, and there seemed little promise of much
over excitation there. And, indeed, some little promise might even see one hang on another day.
Not meaning to be too flippant there, but say!
Yet to say Dr Kelly died of egoism, of something like that, orall that's left, would also be the same
as saying he died of Protestantism as well now then. Well given how Durkheim drew this out for us
it would! And actually Durkheim has been criticised lately even in that he may not have got his
numbers down quite right himself now? And so could he have been pushing some limits back then
even, the implication of that noted so, but why?
But plainly, for now, Dr Kelly wasn't one of those protestants anyway. Or more into the Baha'i sort


of thing by then we could say. And that by some two years or so 'when' Pederson roped him in it
that as well, it is said, ad-nauseam, and so ad nauseous to some (or why mention it then).
We are left with this, an intriguing thought anyway then, and a thought from even before now?
This, that Durkheim may have been more deft than he has been credited with being so far as we
know up till now as well then? Or, that he might even have had to have been so then, given the
climate of his times again, the primacy of the biological hence evolutionary approach to our type
again (as now again Rowe), that eclipsing the social concerns of his times also then (and that
Dickens also wrote about now as well then, or then now).
And so times to come he might have been thinking more about then, And these hard times yes,
they were around then, but they were also around the corner, with more uncertain times to come!
And these might be harder to adjust to for some. For the more rooted we are, Rowe again, the
more rooted we become. We must get to the well spring of conviction then from whence that
comes? Or to the font of it all. We have just begun!
Worlds apart?
Social man, Durkheim said again (above, p.4),
' superimposes himself upon physical man. Social man necessarily presupposes a society which he
expresses or serves...'

And yes that would be so. But is this social person and different from conviction person, or cause
person, or any other higher purpose person that we know? We don't think so, so that you know
which way we are going now...
Still, even before that, that will be a big ask, the above would also mean that Durkheim must have
presupposed a time before this social man or woman as we know of them so well as well then
now? And of course he did, finally, and in a later work after all this work on suicide, his, The
Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (1912).
Yet even before then ideas like these, to be discussed now, are said to have informed his other
more well known work again, The Division of Labour (1893). There wherein this above maxim,108
sits again! And which, while it sounds about right, it still stands out on its own, just put as it is,
right like or what?
Yet, again, even before that later work on religion, Durkheim had come out with this as well - that,
'a consistent increase in suicide always attests to a serious upheaval in the organic conditions of
society [in any case!]...'109
And his thread might have been more complete finally then, we begin, or began, to wonder when
now, if he was always after that reason why? And while Durkheim was of course about much more
than this topic, and while we might even be misrepresenting him here and abouts, nonetheless
this is a thread in his workwith which we think we can interlock with in this work of ours now as
well? so you can see we still donlt know exactly how?
And, in this work of ours, now, and from now on till we can go no farther with it, there will be some
reliance on Giddens again, or on another work of his then. And that as Durkheim is difficult to read
(we may have said?); as is Giddens on him as well (we wouldnt dare). But that Durkheim had an
interest in anthropology all along as well then, well that also works for us well. Well we think it will.
And that the way we are operating (as in again).

Beginning this work, p.3. And, Durkheim, David mile. The Division of Labor in Society. Presses Universitaires De France
Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber.
Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press (1971), p.82.


It was so, that in the history of human thought (Durkheim proposed this - and he would not have
been on his own in this we know), there was nothing so opposed as the idea that the world could
be so split into two though! And as it was at some time then, and so beginning when then, or out
of what rock, if. somehow?
And in his terms now, these divisions were between then, a concern with the material (or our
earthly conditions and concerns now - the profane this is termed then; and with that opposed to
our more spiritual side - this is the sacred side to ourselves; and with these accompanying states
of mind as well?
Going over this again now, this 'other' had to be defined somehow? And here Durkheim would
arrive in time, at a definition of religion, or to the font of all conviction even, if you don't mind?
Thus, as there is more than one type of belief system, can we call these that, it would be able to
be defined as any set of beliefs then, that would lead to such convictions. Also it would be, then, a
force not directly visible, in sight. Or it would be any set of precepts,
'...surrounded by ritual prescriptions and prohibitions which enforce this separation [or which draws us away
from the meanderings of everyday. A] religion is never simply a set of beliefs' anyway. This way [Giddens' for
this110] Durkheim reaches his definition of religion [then, and which stands out still, now]: as, 'a unified
(solidaire) system of beliefs and practises relative to sacred things... beliefs and practises which unite into a
single moral community [broadly111] all those who adhere to them,' as well...

But what Durkheim was also proposing with this now, and as this sits in that maxim above again
then, was that these beliefs and practises came along with this 'social man' now!
And before then, and this seems reasonable as well, we would have been more isolated, just
getting by then, just getting along, just beings and likely in only family sized groupings, still close,
but foremost concerned daily with our most basic needs (the profane again). And so fending for
ourselves, suspicious of others as well, others not quite like ourselves especially, and there might
even have been other types of hominid around and abouts then? But whatever, they would have
been ever ready to defend our patch as we are even now... Same as happens in some parts of any
town still, where patches representing alliances have some meaning there, and there is some
meaning to come out of that still.
As to how this more 'social' type came along after that then now, well Durkheim had a group in
mind when he put this later work out again, and one that might finally show us as well now, just
how we came to that separation between our daily life of this other more special feeling which
represented what then, could we tell from that? And the group he was relying on then, was simply,
he said then, the, 'simplest and most primitive religion known of [still now, or this] Australian
totemism' then.112
Still what started Durkheim on this other path, this other way of looking at ourselves again now?
And, if you'll allow a little free hand here, we will try and get this out? To begin with again then

Ibid: P.107.
A footnote worth including? With no grand point envisioned, but!
Former German soldier, Rudi Gopas, a well recognised artist after immigrating to New Zealand after the war, has remarked
as to how artistic expression was curtailed and for what: 'Under Hitler the Nazi's moved to suppress all unwanted
expressions of thought and creativity. The attacks on modern art spread quickly across Germany. Eventually this position
became very clear through major Nazi cultural statements made in Munich in 1937, which included an exhibition of a
collection of what was considered top class naturalistic portraits, landscapes and general scenes extolling the power of the
Nazis and the virtues of German life in Hitler's terms of Church, Children and the Home, which had been curated with
great care...' Ronayne, Chris. Rudi Gopas: a biography. Auckland, NZ: David Ling Publishing (2002).
Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber.
Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press (1971), p.107.


Durkheim is said to have relied on a writer Albert Schaffle now. 113 Whom in his writings had set out
a case rejecting the concept of the individual seen as freer and happier as before bonded to
society as well (and, well, we had our doubts also).
That even earlier concept (or to a time before these doubts crept up), had relied on another writer
before that now, whom had had an idea that the individual was freer (less suspicious he might
have been supposed to have been then, never really seen, than he or she is, still now?). And so
they might have been more well disposed to others then, like ourselves?
But, well known of still, this Genevan, Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), is said to have been
simply responding with this to a competition set up by the Academy of Dijon then, the question
was then: 'What is the origin of inequality, and is it authorised by natural law?' as well (and some
think so, even now). That aside, Rousseau's entry thus, on the '...Origins of Inequality' came out
after that and was more or less published by himself (by 1755). And in this work he set out the
above case then, and very influential then it was as well - ameliorating, some say, some of the
effects as regards colonial endeavours to this day (but tell this to the disproportionate number of
prisoners locked up in these re-populated places, to this day).
Still, this had stood for a while then. And stands for something even now, we have said. But on the
contrary then, this Schaffle again now, he challenged this then, and in this way. For how could this
be, that a person could be called civilised even, by comparison to a person like he? For,
' everything that makes human life higher than the level of animal existence is derived from the
accumulated cultural and technological wealth of society [actually as well. And indeed if] this be removed
from man, 'then you will have removed at the same time all that makes us truly human [as in, like me

And that is not a view dissimilar to Durkheim's in his maxim again (above), then! Or this social
person doesn't just express his or herself then, but also expresses some greater, wider, though
less tangible purpose again.
And, not quite an aside, here, but Marx, another of the sociology majors more recognisable faces
(though we shouldn't leave out Max Weber, but there he is, in here 115), put forwards something
similar out around at around the same time as Schaffle even (while Durkheim would follow on from
them). This, that if we ever became chained to industry (and it seemed we might then), then this
free agents creativity would be swept to one side. Worse, we would ever only be free in our animal
functions following that.
But then Marx dropped that, perhaps not wishing to become chained to that. But these sorts of
thoughts, all of it (the point of this now maybe?), were anyway thought important at the time (that
at a time a bit before Durkheim's time now), but a bit after Darwin's time as well. And we even
have this other aside now, where Marx offered to dedicate some volume of Das Capital to Darwin
(Giddens say), but this was then declined.
At some stage, after that then, and fitting in amongst all this (between 1885 and 1887), this
discourse with Schaffle grows so Giddens also allows for then116). To where Schaffle then came up

Albert Eberhard Friedrich Schffle (18311903), a German sociologist, political economist, and newspaper editor.
Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber.
Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press (1971), p.67.
'Karl Emil Maximilian "Max" Weber (German, 21 April 1864 14 June 1920) was a German sociologist, philosopher,
and political economist whose ideas influenced social theory, social research, and the entire discipline of sociology.
Weber is often cited, with Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx, as among the three founding creators of sociology.
Weber was a key proponent of methodological antipositivism, arguing for the study of social action through interpretive
(rather than purely empiricist) means, based on understanding the purpose and meaning that individuals attach to their
own actions. Weber's main intellectual concern was understanding the processesof rationalisation, secularisation and
disenchantment that he associated with the rise of capitalism and modernity, and which he saw as the result of a new
way of thinking about the world...' Wikipedia: On, Max Weber.
Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber.


with this other idea now, that wasn't all this new sociology then, more of a German thing anyway
(this another footnote picked up somewhere along the way117).
Durkheim may well have thought such a direction a bit extreme though (well it seems so)! After
dissecting such determined German theories as that laws of economics would apply (this being
able to be related to Darwin's evolutionary discoveries again even), regardless of whether or not
'nations' or 'states' even 'existed'
then, did he think persons even we could say (and will German laws might can we say), Durkheim
proposed again then, that,
'...the work of the German authors has shown [us at least this. That] it is fundamentally mistaken to proceed
in [any] way, as if human life could be reduced to a few intellectually formulated maxims [then]. Rather we
must begin with [something more like] reality [instead these days]!' 118

And, well said, can we say again, for there is a bit of that sort of thinking still round these days!
And we can see that Darwin then was not going to be drawn in to any of these other arguments
other than the arguments he was no doubt already embroiled in himself. Or he might even have
passed (that was in 1882).
Durkheim did like one Wundt though, another German thinker, and author of the work, Ethik now
(published in Stuttgart in 1886 then). And this was work on our moral life then now, rather than on
our biology again then. And so this can be added to this conversation now (though well not
underline this again).
Still Wundt added this to that, now, and Durkheim would then comment on this - that this was
some step forwards then (or at last?). As at least Wundt in this work now had shown us this - or
the basic significance of institutions in our life now. But there was a big but here, after this now:
Wundt has shown us at least this though then, or,
' the basic significance of religious institutions in society [now! And that by his] having shown that,
'primitive religions contain two sorts of interrelated phenomena: [again, and that there are] a set of
'metaphysical speculations on the nature and order of things' on the one hand [ again;] and [that there are]
rules of conduct and moral discipline on the other [hand, though Wundt's conclusion was then that] through
providing ideals to be striven for [then], religion is [the] a force for making social unity [then]...' 119

And a key word apart from 'but' now (we put that in here), must be 'speculations' we might
suppose then?
For around that an objection would arise on the part of Durkheim now, this - that Wundt had surely
failed though now, to properly 'perceive' any duality there then. For sure, the positive attraction to
an ideal was (is), a force for making social unity (yes!). But, now, for there to be any social unity at
all then, there must be another part to this, or some force that enforces this, and that not in plain
sight again as well. And, obviously, it can't be outright force now, for that would be in plain sight
Though Durkheim is talking as much about moral authority here (we can sense that), as about
order in any other sense, nevertheless behind these forms of moral authority, and they differ here
and there, must be some social factors then, his reading of this... And that not that grand a
conclusion so far we know that ourselves! But this for that reason again now, or that solidarity can
only be produced now,
'to the degree that it is spontaneous [then].But by spontaneity we must understand not simply the
Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press (1971), p.67.
On some other page
Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber.
Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press (1971), p.69.
Ibid: P.70.


absence of express and overt violence, but of anything that might, even indirectly, shackle the free
employment of the social force that each person carries in himself [then]...' 120

And an advance on Marx that is at least now. That there could be a mechanism then, where we
could advance our selves. And one which can promote itself!
But the division of labour (discussion to come), is but one mechanism that Durkheim found himself
now, on how we promote our selves in any case! But, to begin with again here, we have to turn to
Durkheim and to this totemism again then now, or to this elementary work again then.
And it is difficult to be certain about the origins of these ideas so far as they may have come to
Durkheim's attention as well now? Ideas on this, studies, seem to have ranged from 1791 right up
until Durkheim took these on and onwards from then?121
Back to this group though then a, 'specific feature' in the instance of this Australian society
having been that each clan group (not kinship group alone as before then), was known by the,
'name of a material object', or a totem this was/ is called, then...
Further, this object is 'believed' to have very special properties 122 now. It being an embodiment of
some supernatural force operating around 'themselves' as well! The sacred relevance of such
objects however, is only apparent at times of religious observance though (and so now and then,
Otherwise these are just ordinary earthly objects now, that can found all around. That this can be
anything at hand also explains their relevance now (well this late work of Durkheim's at least
suggests). For it might, and we might even suppose this ourselves now, relate to some particular
area then. Or, as well, to a particular mode of subsistence 'over there' then. But in ceremony, this
the point of this then, this distinguishes us as well. We come from this, we are this and so on
And so its sacredness now? Or, how? Well, as explained by Giddens quite well perhaps again, not
only would some clan group allow themselves to be known as (or called) an object's name as well,
but each person bears that name in common now as well. Or they are the same and dont mind
being seen that way. They do not distinguish themselves from each other then. Nor from these
objects even. They are these even.
But now there's also the representation of this object which they carry about themselves as well?
And so that has to be to accounted for as well, its sacredness then, for this seems more sacred to
them even? But it is safe to say in any case, that,
' one of the three sorts of sacred objects [the actual totem, object they bring to the party now; the
members of the clan themselves then; and then this emblem of this totem] derives its sacred character from
either of the others [though now], since they all share a common religiosity [even? Still, or therefore] their
sacred character emanates from a force which embraces them all [generally then, and that is] a force which
they all partially share in, but which is nonetheless separate from them' [duality being addressed in this ].' 123

And so in order, now (you may not agree), to discover the source of this general religiosity now

Ibid: P.81.
The first theory is said to have been proposed by the Scottish ethnologist John Ferguson McLennan: Following the
vogue of 19th-century research, he wanted to comprehend totemism in a broad perspective, and in his study The Worship
of Animals and Plants (1869, 1870) he did not seek to explain the specific origin of the totemistic phenomenon but sought
to indicate that all of the human race had in ancient times gone through a totemistic stage... Wolfe, Patrick. Settler
Colonialism. London, New York, Sydney and Delhi, Continuum International... (1998). Indeed there are wide examples of
this. See, Wikipedia: On, Totemism.
Finally we could safely say though, that Durkheim first put down thoughts on this in 1900-01, in the Journal, L'Anne
Sociologique, with a contribution entitled, Sur le totmisme,' the Journal it seems, founded by himself (and in 1898 at that).
From Giddens bibliography at the end of his, 'Capitalism and modern social theory...' again, p. 249.
Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber.
Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press (1971). P.108.
Ibid: Pp.108-109.


then, there must then be a source, or something then, that they then generally experience but not
at every moment then?
And as it is not, couldn't be, the actual totem itself that generates this then (moreover, 'the
representation of the totem is usually regarded as more sacred than the object itself', as well [well
that would mean then] that 'the totem is above all a symbol, a mutual expression of something
else [now]...'124
But of what else could that be now? And, well, for Durkheim now then, that ends up with religious
sentiment co-joined with religious symbolism then. And that as 'created and recreated' in the
ceremonial and only in this way then. But now when?
'The Australian societies pass through alternate cycles, in one of which kinship groups live
separately, giving over the whole of its activity to economic ends, and in the other of which
members of clans or phratries [related clan groups] assemble together for a definite period (which
may be as short as a few days or may last several months). [It is] this latter phase... an occasion
for public ceremonial, which usually has a highly intense and emotional character...' 125
It is in these ceremonials then, according to Durkheim now then (or according to Giddens again
now then126), that men (and woman), would feel, 'overpowered by a force greater than themselves
[now, and], which results from the collective effervescence of the occasion [thus. Thus] the
individual is conveyed into a world which appears to be utterly different to that of the everyday [of
the mundane then. Thus this awareness] of the divine is born out of this collective ferment [that a
higher feeling], and so is the conception [then] of its separateness from, and its superiority to, the
everyday world of the profane [again then]..'127
Further, this would show us again,
' why it is futile [always has been then] to attempt to define a religion in terms of the substantive content of
beliefs [or in Wundt's way again then. For whether] or not a given object or symbol [a speculation even]
becomes sacred does not depend upon its intrinsic properties [then. Rather the] most common-place object
may become sacred if it is infused with the [or that same] religious force [again].
In this way a rag achieves sanctity and a scrap of paper may be extremely precious. This also shows why a
sacred object may be subdivided without losing its holy quality. A piece of Jesus's cloak [would be as] sacred
as the whole thing [as it recalls this sense of being]...' 128

A flag thus, a football jersey even, it follows, could be infused thus. And we know this feeling
ourselves now, and so it could be thus? Or we can sense a little of at least.
But, back to this totemism again now. Or to before this social man (and woman), came along again
now? Or at least to the point before we were infused here and there with some sort of spirit like
this then. For it seems worthwhile to muse on further representations of such things and occasions
like these, above the ground still now?
And so on to meaning still above the ground then. Or to symbolism left of high altar and sacrifice,
the Mayan ruins and the like if you don't mind this take now? And so to evidence as well then, of
actual 'totem' poles as well now, termed these even, now, and set in the ground in the America's
as for ceremony again, and found to go back now some 10,000 years as well, but not much further
than, so far as anyone knows.





And so now to the Near East around then as well then. Or to there where food production was at
last underway. This was the Neolithic phase, which left some with time on their hands then, in
another place.
And it would be so convenient as well, if all this could come to one point now! Or if we could say,
or point to one area, say the Near East again, as the cradle of all these things about us now then.
But we can't now, actually, do that now because these areas were cut off by then, from each other
(at that point ten thousand years ago again), by the land bridge between these continents having
become being flooded over again...
But it is even more convenient somehow now that we can't relate all that to our selves! For we can
say further from that, that this would shows us now how we build things up to begin with then; and
then the why we pile stone on top of stone after that, and that so as to keep that greater feeling
going, of our selves, and so that shows us in larger part then how we operate then worlds apart!
Too many hats?
Having pre-supposed another time now, a time before all this construction, Durkheim, before this
point then, had had a thought or two now about why such a world, so constructed then, didn't
completely fall apart with the advent of contact then, with other parts? And in some cases there
was some destruction. Still, this brings us back to that prior work of Durkheim's again now then,
the Division of Labor... (1893).
The first division in labour, ever, Durkheim set out in that work, would have been between men
and women. Stands to reason even. This was so, and is so now even. Its a wonder how its hung
on? More we would say to do with what we have just touched on, before. With the way to address
this, all such old differences, answered in this work as well now then.
For a further growth in the 'division of labour' then, to have proceeded beyond that point now,
Durkheim imagined then, that further relationships, 'must have formed where none [had]
previously existed [before then. And here he is allowing for more than some happy coming
together of groups related to an area then; these], bringing [as he puts it] erstwhile separate
groups into contact',129 after that then.
Albeit that this tinkers with existing relations, relationships even now then, as this sort of contact,
' can only proceed 'at the expense of the strength of common beliefs and sentiments... [also now then,
though still these contacts have not] necessarily 'collapse[d these existing sentiments completely then]...' 130

And so why not we get to this now then. Well obviously there ahas been some accommodation
then, here and there. This, in any case, it is said (by Giddens again for one 131), is the main thrust of
this work then. Where in place, now then, of some existing consensus, or of that 'normal' or more
romanticised state of being (allowed for by Rousseau again even); there has been a transition then
from what he then allowed was a more mechanical sort of unthinking prior to this further contact
then; to a more organic sort of thinking now then. A transition to a form of relating where persons
interests become aligned so far as they can be, with differences set aside in favour of further
And now, and here, the main thrust of his reasoning begun. For where there is not this stability
following the inevitable then (or to the point where this interdependence does not intersect), then
you could get his anomie arising out of that then. Or to extend his reasoning here, we would get
disorderly relations at least, or moral disorder.

Ibid, p.79.
Ibid. p.79.
Ibid, p.72.


But, further now, any new type of disorder can now be seen as being evidence of external
inequalit[ies] interfering with the potential of these new relationships then. And so the existence of
these inequities (and they might just as easily be seen as these), prevents this moral order then.
But after that, disorder is a measure of this! And further, you could adjust or balance affairs then,
so as to ameliorate this disorder, moral or otherwise. And that of course, as an idea, could be
extended even into our private sphere not too surprisingly either. Hence a certain mental state, or
a feeling of not being incorporated, would be described as this again, or as anomie then, that
affecting future relations, affairs, even.
But let us break from this now though, even though that may be so, and even though that seems
fair, sensible and reasonable even here.
For much of Durkheim's sociology it is said (Giddens for one again), boils down to some distaste
for another grand idea in his time getting currency then. And so far up till now we only thought
something along those lines might be the case. But it seems the case (according to Giddens again
then). But where to fit this in if it did fit then, we wondered all along as well then?
Still, in particular (Giddens again, again), some of Durkheim's ideas seem to have stemmed from
Herbert Spencer's ideas foremost now (he is a target, Giddens says, for critical attack in the
Division of Labor132). Spencer was the sponsor of many ideas but he also coined the term 'survival
of the fittest', this during the Victorian era then.133 And this was much to the distaste of Durkheim
again, as perhaps even the Victorians..?
But this is an idea that is still struggling on now, we do think we can get to that our selves? But it
had currency then anyway, and made money then as well. Though of Spencer there's not much
left of him round now.134 Though (now, or well), asked Talcott Parsons, in 1937 back then, '"Who
now reads Spencer" now?'135 And well, before then, as many in the US as in the UK after that it
seems once then. And that was still some then (or some million plus once split evenly apparently
then), and that at a time when the world was not so populated as now... And still something now
can be read into this, we think? And in this we would not be alone here now then, we don't think
(and Giddens may even be in on this then, we think again?).
Now, whereas we have seen how far Durkheim would go with 'his' state then (he would meddle to
get the balance right and so to get it all going round merrily); Spencer had argued then that there
should be no state at all before him then now! Further, when it came to mechanical modes of
thinking that for him was a description of earlier times, in that persons before our lot weren't
capable of development themselves. And so they could be used just as tools we could say?
But now there were individuals out there anyway, and who have arrived in the world, we suppose,
in their own good time. And so with no links particularly, back till then. And here in mind he had
some biological underpinning in that we might find, and that in line with what Darwin had going for
himself again! But then, as now, this doesn't actually turn out to be so. And that is not a bad

Ibid, p.77.
English philosopher (1820-1903), biologist, anthropologist, sociologist, prominent liberal political theorist, and whom
coined the term SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST, first, during the Victorian era. His 'General influence' (Wiki): 'While most
philosophers fail to achieve much of a following outside the academy of their professional peers, by the 1870s and 1880s
Spencer had achieved an unparalleled popularity, as the sheer volume of his sales indicate. He was probably the first, and
possibly the only, philosopher in history to sell over a million copies of his works during his own lifetime. In the United
States, where pirated editions were still commonplace, his authorized publisher, Appleton, sold 368,755 copies between
1860 and 1903. This figure did not differ much from his sales in his native Britain, and once editions in the rest of the world
are added in the figure of a million copies seems like a conservative estimate. As William James remarked, Spencer
"enlarged the imagination, and set free the speculative mind of countless doctors, engineers, and lawyers, of many
physicists and chemists, and of thoughtful laymen generally." The aspect of his thought that emphasized individual selfimprovement found a ready audience in the skilled working class...' Wikipedia: On, Herbert Spencer again, at
Interred in the eastern side of London's Highgate Cemetery facing Karl Marx's grave.
An influential US sociologist (1902-1979). And that quote from Wiki on Spencer again (ref below again).


summary somehow of at least some of his ideas now. 136

And so now we have a response to this on the part of Durkheim (courtesy of Giddens) again as
well. For this was, then, so far as Durkheim was concerned then, patent nonsense even then. And
so some shot he was firing then, but who remembers Durkheim now we suppose as well? But in
any case as we can connect with this, we have this to add now as well. For, a
' society [then] in which each individual solely pursues his own interest [s then] would [surely then]
disintegrate within a short space of time [now]. For there is nothing less constant that interest [for]. Today it
unites me to you; tomorrow it [may make] me your enemy...'137

Or touch then, this is egoism, even. Or this may be the long way round to where we all want to
go. Or the trail to nowhere even?
But conversely, now, this is a trail that we can follow back some time as well now, though of
course it will trail off somewhere as all trails do... And its easier to reach for the smoking gun of
course, than to blow the smoke away sometimes as well. And so we must allow for that as well. Yet
there are examples, even now, in the wilds of America there, of persons who may have taken
Spencer's words to heart. Or if not, live by them now still? No matter what's left of him, again...
And that now as there are some out there still and hunkered down there, come the big break from
all this interference in their lives by government still! Why this the calamity they are pepped for
even then... And so some hanging on, we'd say, of Spencer's words again... Which did sit right with
some of them back then. And which does sit right with some, then, now even, well?
And its not now, as if they are all out there on their own even. Or take all the interminable
resistance to all reform in the US of late as well then, the health reforms even or instead reflect
on the endless stonewalling of Obama's wishes there. And, even, the state of gun play in the US
there, well doesnt that say something about the state of play there? And that they are not up with
the play, other places, still?
And Giddens now, in his brief introduction to sociology again, why he also allowed that to a certain
extent the American revolution started something there as well!138 And of course it did, there. And,
after that, and after another uprising next in France, and which alarmed the English so much next,
well that led to the point also now, many places, where there seems no end of pegs in sight on
which to hang your hat on now then. And we can at that, now. And often without fear or favour
directly in sight... Well not at first sight.
Durkheim's worried some that by now some 'moral ambiguity' would arise then and because this
then. For the more we can turn this way or that way again, well that would lead to the situation
then of our living more on different levels or apart again. We could even suggest he saw more
classes developing this way then, but that wasn't really his interest again. But we could recognise
these as developing this way, rather than how Marx saw this then or that there were only two
roads to go. Broadly though, stage one sociology would have it as well then, that there are other
forms of status to go round now. And we'd think many more than a few even?
Broadly, before this, Durkheim laid this out this way now, which is almost why we went for this
idea of this having something to do with this 'death' as well? And that by following some reasoning
after this in that groups would also get smaller this way again now... And that an intriguing idea we

Wikipedia: On, Herbert Spencer again, at

In, The Division of Labor (1893). But this is from Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of
the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press (1971), p.77.
'In the French revolution, (to which we can bracket, with some reservations [tick to Giddens here], the anti-colonial
revolution in North America in 1776), for the first time in history, there took place the overall dissolution of a social order by
a movement guided by purely secular ideals [Spencer operated like this, a revisionist].' See Spencer again, if you wish,
and Giddens for this - Anthony. Sociology: A brief but critical introduction, second edition. London, MacMillan Education Ltd,
Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire (1986). P.4. Or, Wikipedia: On, Herbert Spencer again, at


also thought now, for we would sort of be going back to where we once were then, somewhat
isolated from each other then again?
In his terms [Durkheim's again then] 'the universal maxime that commands us to develop [now, and],
according to the specific qualities which [a] person has [within themselves; and that commends us if we do [is
nevertheless] in a general way... everywhere... contradicted [or countermanded] by the [general] precept
which [also] commands us all to follow the same ideal...' 139

And at first, following this, we thought this might be the dynamic that would get us 'there' finally
here? As we have seen some reaction from Dr Kelly to his feeling let down by his media group (this
negative reciprocity example to do with his relations with this group, before, p*).. And so we
thought might they have been his social group as well then? From where he would expect some
support then, would need it even? And if there was any dynamic there, it would be then that
support for us all must not go below a certain level then? That out of that as well.
But, it occurs now, that Dr Kelly's relationships with these media persons was somewhat formal as
well? And we could evidence that from our example of negative reciprocity even again now, in that
that is evidence of some dynamic like that within these relations as well! And well founded now as
That leaves us with this then, that Dr Kelly had no solid idea around what hat he was wearing then,
when mixing in differing company, and that this (his slip up), just slipped out while he was wearing
one of them then!
And, generally, to summarise Durkheim on this now, he thought that we would get through this
sort of thing. Or that new ideals would come along to replace the outdated... And they would be
just as appealing some day as well. And so we would continue to hang together quite well. And
that would be as in here and there still then, as he would not have foreseen this age where we hop
continents with as much ease as is allowed.

War of the worlds?

The 'here and there' still would be the 'thing' now though, with this, well we think so, finally this.
And that we can hang this death on some reasoning now then, and this following Durkheim
And there are examples that we can get to and that spring to mind immediately after all this. But,
before that, could you declare a decision to go to war, the result of something like 'high altar and
sacrifice' again, or as cultural then, therefore?

And if we could allow that would not the contradictions become stark if you played some part
directly in it? Currently, to back this perhaps somehow ( and returning to our example that just
occurred to us straight off above), the US is losing many returned servicemen from Iraq and
Afghanistan to suicide as well now. (And that goes against the concept of anomie as well?). But
lets not forget the returned vets from Vietnam now as well. And wasnt their problem reintegration
then. And, they do say, dont they, that you havent seen anything unless you have been one of
these men, and women also now.
But for all that now, or for some servicemen and women then, having perceived little difference in
those persons they were fighting with, and now with some perception of just what they were
fighting for, and whom, after all the old problems dont just go away when you come back to them
again (and we will get to why you might perceive this, an ironic twist), would this be too great a
point, and for some to reflect on, the same again now?
And now, our ironic twist (or some redeeming grace?), as to why you might perceive this for

Ibid, Giddens, p, 73.


yourself now? For, for them to be so affected (this a question now), well that would also be
because they were also more individualistic now. And in fact, if they were so affected, so they
would be fine examples of this individual now as well. And, well, finer examples of this than those
unaffected by any of what they had been through as well. A
Our point is no doubt missed (and can be dismissed), and we are finding it hard to find the line
now ourselves?
But could this increased prevalence in our example of this in this instance now, be in fact put down
to this (and this is the explanation that the right doesnt care much about either now). But to this
rather than as it is now - to this being more to do with the treatment they are or are not
receiving upon return from theatre - and as they also call it that, now. But its not this at all, is it
Of course we cant establish a direct link with that and this now (and wed have to ditch some part
of anomie now as well somehow), but that some preamble something along the lines of where we
want to go with this now. And even, as there, if it doesnt quite run along the lines of Durkheim
First, the straight forwards way of dealing with this as a bit more than a story now. And so,
including the notion of reciprocity again then (as found); and allowing then, or taking into account
Broucher's evidence before also (to whom Dr Kelly talked of moral ambiguity again as well); well
we think we could get this down and fairly pat you may think again, after that then? But!
To Broucher (this was in Geneva again then), Dr Kelly had said to him then, that he felt that he was
' in an ambiguous moral position' should a war come after dealings with the Iraqis on this question of
disarmament then. And that as, 'he had assured his Iraqi sources that there would be no war if they cooperated [as before140]...'

Now we could allow, or add to that, that Dr Kelly was a frequent flyer to the US on whatever of this
business he also had to conduct there. Also, he had his own masters at home in the UK. And, so, to
go, he had their demands to allow for wherever he went as well. And allowing for that a little
further, here we are saying that he was not a sole flyer at all then. And indeed he did wear many
hats (Rufford do tell us again141). We also have a little from which we could adjudge as to hoe he
operated also (and that as per Rowe and important again now).
And, on top of that (on his head be it), we could locate ideals, or one at least, and one that would
sit well with many of us, as well disarmament so far as these dirty weapons go now (thought
they are all dirty oyu know). And, from that, at least so far as we can tell, well that would also
suggest, as he made some headway (that is plain), that he prided himself on acting even handedly
'here and there' again. And lets not leave Iraq out of the equation either. He might not had had
masters there, but he may as well have as they had demands as well!
Reciprocity we have also allowed back in to this end here. Not just in that with Broucher again, we
have it that Dr Kelly was conscious that he may receive some payback due to some of these
dealings with the Iraqis? But, implicit in what he also said, or as he put his hand out there, so he
always got something back from them in the end. Or, some form of cooperation from that then,
that being implicit, there, in what he said. And that is a mechanism again, or a dynamic even, that
will always help parties over ride natural fear, caution, commonly
And here we would also allow back in again that some fear can also be over ridden by some idea

First mentioned in our work in, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). P.81. (Where we left Brouchers name spelt wrong twice?
Not like us?).
Rufford above again, start with the dark arts, p.35.


or ideal again now then. And that as per our previous heading, some caption of Roosevelts, the
World War II president of the US again. Again, following attack on themselves at Pearl harbour, he
lead with this heading, We have nothing to fear but fear itself,' now! And with that he was
assuring his countrymen and women beginning WWII, and quite sensibly and clearly (Durkheim
would agree with that there, Churchill as well)), there, that the only response to fear is to unite, to
embrace each other even. To become as in one fold.
Still, all that aside, we have the difficulty of that position that Dr Kelly was in to allow for again
here. His position personally. And this was even before this, impasse. And this position he was in
should not be understated either.
'When asked by Broucher [again] what might happen to him if Iraq were invaded, Dr 'Kelly had replied to that,
that, "I will probably be found dead in the woods [also then. And to,] "' the inquiry Broucher then 'quoted from
an email he had sent [to some other person] just after Kelly's death [now].' It said:
"I did not think much of this at the time, taking it to be a hint that the Iraqis might try to take revenge against
him, something that did not seem at all fanciful then. I now see that he may have been thinking on rather
different lines."142

Still, as per Roosevelt even, you could see how Dr Kelly might want to link arms across the seas
himself even. And that might be our line here, but that was not the line the inquiry was going over
now again then?
And the timing was out or was it now? Interested to know more about when their family member
might have said this, for the timing seemed out to them (his family, their reason to come), they
came back later with this or that that was a whole year before then, when he may have said this.
And this was from diaries they said they were relying on now? And in any case, he couldn't have
been in Geneva then, they said, for he was on his way back to the US again then! 143 But what this
does show is that this is how it had been for him for some time now!
And so, perhaps, more of a conclusion may be able to be reached for with this? For in this fringe
world of Dr Kelly's that he worked in then, well he would have had to give ground here and there
(though the family wouldn't give ground there and this might serve us yet that they did not then?).
For we might even, then, allow that this work had been going on a lot longer that we, they even,
might have thought also? And even after he was no longer operating in Iraq, or there on his feet
there so to speak, yet he might have visited there, or held meetings somewhere even, in Geneva
perhaps now that has come up again?
But more than that though, this highlights the nature of this business again or reminds us that it
goes on out on the fringes again. And, we almost missed an appreciation of this. But how about an
appreciation of this now or that, and here we don't think it is going too far (considering our high
altar and sacrifice example above again, as on a par maybe?), to even characterise US interests as
different in respects in this business now.
Or, as not on a par even, again, with the Brits in this? And that is not how we'd normally
characterise these relationships. Its not even a thought that would normally occur, because we all
seem so alike in some respects. But that is a fair way also, to consider that these interest are not
on par by a long way. And Iraqi interests, they are not the same either, and never were well before
then even. Yet we rubbed along, Dr Kelly somehow also!
Concluding remarks to make after that in this part now, these: that while not quite so far out on
the fringe himself, as some of those he had to deal with, nonetheless Dr Kelly was always dealing
with persons on the fringes themselves, if you allow for that as well? And over a long period then,
and longer than those elected then, and so this was practically his lifelong mission then, and here

Broucher, Gerald (2003). Friend/ Colleague of Dr Kelly: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). P. 81 on again


remembering Moscow 1991 again.

And now, regardless of what you think of this, drift, these interest were competing in a sense then.
And it's the nature of the business even, leadership, and this competitive thing, and a pointer of
sorts again.
And now, while not wanting to overly ratchet this up again ourselves now, we could say this in any
case then, that this might also have been a game that once under way, and for real now, that
persons like Dr Kelly would have quickly lost interest in. And it does seem he did now! As he didnt
want to go back in.
We are reminded of this again even, this business with the dark actors email again. There were
dark actors, they were playing a game He would wait a week before to see if he would be
allowed in (we allowed that he meant into Iraq again then), then there was this (or he blew the
whistle on this for himself in a very real sense).
Thus we were left with a confusing picture there for sure. But here it gets even a bit more difficult
now, as he left on another note as well, and this you wouldnt normally read about either as well!
And here you so could say that this was the last note he left us on now?
Or at least it is one of the last things he let slip anyway. And revealing some of how he felt just
then, on that day, but likely before we would say. But this he said to his wife Janice then now, and
though Janice never did repeat this, a friend of them both did - and so we have this from Flint in
'On the day David killed himself, having earlier told Jan this was really not a world he cared to live in, the
news from Iraq was bad and sad: a young British soldier, Corporal Russell Aston, buried after a mob killing in
southern Iraq... MI6 duped by another dodgy dossier, this time about alleged uranium purchases [Niger/Plame
affair144]... a surface-to-air missile fired against Baghdad airport... refusals by Bush-Blair to allow UN
inspectors, the people David most trusted, to finish the job.
Jan testifies to the Hutton inquiry this week...'145

Last, to add to that, we now have the fact that Dr Kelly gave Flint what she requested from him
also then. Or this a case for this war it now seems?
And again, now, this was, 'written days before the Iraq war, in which he assessed the threat from
Saddam [then]...' And this was finally co-published by Flint with that other bit of news just
mentioned then? Again while the Hutton inquiry was on for some reason as well now then? Or was
it a call to unify perhaps, around this? Otherwise an odd thing, the timing of this, set to influence
some then?
But again, or in this assessment, anyway, the threat from Saddam, Dr Kelly still felt, was for real.
And this is at odds with the whistle blower idea again now then. Always has been! Orwell, it should
have been! Yet the item was even entitled 'Only regime change will avert the threat...' 146now
Yet we at least have this or that this was addressed to just about all of us at that time then! Or,
well it was then, in any case. But, helpful, it showed some feeling personal again, or at least some
of this! And that perhaps might even have been him going back to that laser light incident when
he was out late walking about with Pederson again, back in Baghdad again then now, that going
back to 98, the end of it, when they were all finally rousted out again
Then Flint came out with this now? Or then that the only person cheering about Dr Kelly's death
now (certainly no ministers allowed to in this), would be Saddam himself in her co item now?
Though we doubted this ourselves before now. As his boys had just been killed in Baghdad by US

A gain, p. 22, above, an on

Guardian, London (2003).'What Kelly really thought about the war in Iraq. Julie Flint, a Middle East expert and former
Observer reporter, describes the UN weapons inspector she knew and respected and how he agreed to write down his
thoughts on Saddam's weapons and menace.'
Or gan in, the fuss about Kelly? (Part one). P. 99


troops by now!147
Conversely now though, we could say to that, that that item couldnt be left out of this now, even
though it was not much of a fit re his image this. But at least we know that Dr Kelly had held high
hopes that it would have been the other way round for him now. Or that Saddam would be
underground by then. Certainly not him.
And, going over that item again148 (or, in the fuss about Kelly? (Part one), p.99, an on), it seems
that Dr Kelly thought that all that had to be done in Iraq then, would be to change the regime
again in any case. It is said (there), it reads well as well, that Dr Kelly was not for any more action
other than that in any case now. Actually, you could even allow that the US were also out to get
Saddam straight off themselves, and that as with the first bomb that did fall... Still the war was not
as Dr Kelly had envisioned it then. And this is as above this part again?
Stage Fright?
Weve said there might be parts to this, and this might be the other part now? But to conclude
again the above part, we stated that off saying that being part of something well that could disturb
you if you did take part.
Obviously (again), and this may be the other part, if you stood out for some reason you would in
effect be being individualised even! Hawton even (and again), said, didnt he, that all the attention
Dr Kelly was getting wouldnt have done him much good! But then he said that this would have
made him uncomfortable more because he was a private person. But in effect you are also being
stood apart, when you are singled out as well. And quite specifically a problem for the Vietnam
vets as above again, was reintegration, with there being a good deal of feeling about what they
had been about over there.
This leaves us with this now the feeling that Hawtons highlighting of that (and he says we
shouldnt do this sort of thing ourselves over anything like this), well it doesnt wash so well now!
And, well, only outsiders see things in anything like the light you might see things in if you looked
at them hard enough some times
Some other cruel irony might even appear out this last piece of the puzzle, or to do with that. For
here, after all that service as well now, and well here (at that committee meeting, the FAC again),
was he not in a similar position there to where he'd been, and for years even before this even? And
there he was being set upon by one set of adversaries so as to get him to assist them to get a set
on yet another set of theirs, not his personally (and its doubtful, given all this for consideration
again, that he had any political leanings even).
A clear intention, Durkheim said (and we have stuck with him, through thick and thin, thinner here
and there you may think), is what defines the act that is actually worth talking more about. Yet as
to whether that was a clear intention of Dr Kelly's declared by that remark just above again (by
Flint and that he said this to Janice then), and it may have been, well, just that! A clean cut he may
have decided, would be cleaner than all this. And some statement that if it was. And in some
another notable cases, as we have worked our way through this, we have thought that may have
been the case, or was!
But so far as Janice might be concerned about this now, and that we have left this at this. Well this
would leave us, in any case, with this now. Or with the impression anyway that Janice had seen
him go off like that before. But, then, he had always come back as well. And, well, he didnt come
back from this, we know. And so close to home was he then as well, that Janice may well think of

CNN.Com/ USA (2003). Pentagon: 'Saddam's sons killed in raid. U.S. military might release photographs of bodies.'
Guardian, aka the Observer, London (2003). 'Only regime change will avert the threat. Here we reprint Dr David Kelly's
article, written days before the Iraq war, in which he assessed the threat from Saddam.''


this (and its unlikely others do, except in another way), unto this day!
David Christopher Kelly, CMG, was laid to rest at St Marys Church in the Oxfordshire village of
Longworth (within sight of Harrowdown Hill), 6 August, 2003 (aged 59), 149 in a not so private
ceremony that included a semblance of Baha'i, and Lord Hutton (whose inquiry would begin the
following week), attended also. And surreal this must have seemed to all of them, attending, let
alone his family, as yet no one then knew then for sure just what else they may have been dealing
with then? Some, actually, are still not sure this has been dealt with yet? And Durkheim would put
that down to the flip side of this below (again), which might be quite some point on which to end?
'Just as religious sentiments of joy become raised to fever-point in he collective excitation produced by the
ceremonial, so a 'panic of sorrow' is developed in mourning rituals. The effect of is to draw together the
members of a group whose solidarity has been threatened by the loss of one of its members. 'Since they
weep together, they hold to one another and the group is not weakened, in spite of the blow which has fallen
it... the group feels its strength gradually returning to it; it begins to hope and to live again...'
As in the, Elementary Rules of Religion, mile Durkheim (1912).

At hand:
A Beautiful Mind. Review: IMDB @
Absalom, Ruth (2003). Neighbour: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
'Addendum to the humble memorial...' (2010).
Baker, Norman. The Strange Death of David Kelly. London, Methuen (2007).
Bartlett, David (2003). Ambulance, technician: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Bath, Michael (2010). Letter, comment, posted on the Observer newspaper website - leading item having been by, Andrew
Gilligan: 'I did not betray David Kelly or reveal him as my source: Andrew Gilligan disputes Nick Cohen's comment on the
politics behind the death of the government scientist caught up in the Iraq inquiry...'
BBC. September Dossier (2002). Outlining the case for war against Iraq. Historical Perspective, Dr Kellys, Pp 33-43.
BBC News, HARDtalk (2003). UK. Iraq: Scott Ritter (7 October, 2003): In a HARDtalk interview on 6 October, David Jessel
spoke to former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter about the latest report on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
BBC News, Panorama (2003). "SECRET SPIES and VIDEOTAPE"
BBC News (2003).'Blair under pressure over Mitty remark.'
BBC News, UK Politics (2010). 'Kelly wounds self inflicted says pathology report.''
See: Section 34: Deportation from Kuwait.
BBC News (2003). Day 17: 'Key points: Here are the key points from evidence of witnesses on day 17 of the Hutton inquiry
into the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly.'

And to the sound of 59 chimes of a church bell


BBC Today Programme (29 May 2003). Andrew Gilligan's assertion that the September 2002 Dossier on Iraq was 'sexedup', so to speak:
BBC/ PBS Broadcasting (1998). FRONTLINE 1706 "Plague War".
BBC News (2009). 'Painkiller ban has cut suicides.'
Blair, Tony. A Journey. London, Hutchinson, Random Press (2010).
Blix, Hans. Disarming Iraq. New York, Pantheon Books (9 March 2004).
Bosch, Olivia (2003). Senior Research Fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, also known as Chatham House,
former UNSCOM inspector (period between 1991-1998): Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Breaking News (2003). Kelly warned of 'dark actors playing games.
British Medical Association. Depression and its treatment. British Medical Association, BMA House, Tavistock Square,
London (1986).
Broucher, Gerald (2003). Friend/ Colleague of Dr Kelly: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Burrows, Shane (2003). Cheating Death in Bluejohn Canyon.
Chapman, Paul (2003). Search team: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Clark, Wing Commander John (2003). Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Clark evidence, this PDF from the Guardian:
CNN.Com/WORLD (2003): 'Blix: Iraq unlikely to use chemical, germ weapons: But still a lot of questions, the chief inspector
CNN.Com/ USA (2003). Pentagon: 'Saddam's sons killed in raid. U.S. military might release photographs of bodies.'
Coe, Graham (2003). Police Officer, Detective Constable: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Cockburn, Claude. In time of trouble. London, Hart-Davis (1956).
Cohen, Nick (2010). London, England. Columnist, Blogger:
Conan Doyle, Sir Arthur. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Boscombe Valley Mystery. London, The Strand Magazine
Daily Mail, London (2004). 'The Dr David Kelly affair.'
Daily Mail, London (2010). 'Dr David Kelly's body had obviously been moved: Paramedic at death scene reveals concerns
over Hutton Inquiry.'
Daily Mail, London (2008). 'David Kelly's closest female confidante on why he COULDN'T have killed himself.'
Daily Mail, London (2010). 'How the genius behind Wind In The Willows drove the son who inspired him to suicide.'
Daily Mail, London (2003). 'Riddle of missing dental records.'


Daily Mail, London (2008). Thread: Dr David Kelly, how feasable was suicide?
Daily Mail, London (2010). Pederson, Mai. Friend/ Colleague of Dr Kelly: Why I'm certain my friend Dr Kelly was murdered.'
Daily Mail, London (2011). 'I'm sure I know the truth about Dr Kellys death. But, thanks to Hutton, the world will never be
told', his friend reveals...' By TOM MANGOLD: 'Once again, the conspiracy theorists are crying foul over the refusal of the
Government to hold an inquest into the death of Dr David Kelly.' 2002640/DrDavid-Kelly-Friend-says-world-know-truth-thanks-Hutton-Inquiry.html
Daily Record, Glasgow (2000). SADDAM'S MATA HARI HIT SQUADS; Female assassins sent to Britain.'S+MATA+HARI+HIT+SQUADS;+Female+assassins+sent+to+Britain.-a063767247.
Diekmann, Andreas. The Power of Reciprocity... Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Durkheim, David mile. The Division of Labor in Society. Presses Universitaires De France (1893).
Durkheim, David mile. Suicide. Presses Universitaires De France (1897).
Durkheim, David mile. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd. (1915).
Flint, Julie and Alex de Waal. Darfur: A Short History of a Long War. London, Zed Books (2006).
Flint, Julie. Guardian unlimited... comment is free: (2007).
Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought. Edited by Alan Bullock & Oliver Stallybrass, London, Fontana/ Collins (1986).
Frost, Dr Stephen (2010). 'Who was Behind the Death of Dr. David Kelly? The Case is far from Closed.' Posted, hosted now,
by Global Research, USA.
Frost, Dr Stephen; Halpin, Dr David; Burns-cox, Dr Christopher; Brandon, Paul (2008). 'The Death of David Kelly and the
Sexed Up WMD Report: Was BBC Andrew Gilligan's Original Source a Senior Member of Her Majesty's Government?'
Posted, hosted now, by Global Research, USA:
Get Reading UK (2009). Will Brock be top dog at Crufts?
Giddens, Anthony. Sociology: A brief but critical introduction, second edition. London, MacMillan Education Ltd,
Houndsmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire (1986).
Giddens, Anthony. Capitalism and modern social theory: an analysis of the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber.
Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press (1971).
Gilligan, Andrew (2003). Journalist: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry (scroll down, 3:14).
Global USA. 'Mobile Biological Weapons Facilities: "Winnebagos of Death."'
Guardian, London (2003). 'Widow's anger at ploy by Sunday Times.'
Guardian, London (2003). Hutton inquiry witnesses: Professor Keith Hawton, Director of the centre for suicide research at
Oxford University.
Guardian, London (2003). ''What Andrew Gilligan said in the Mail on Sunday. Andrew Gilligan repeats the allegations in his
column in the Mail on Sunday on June 1, giving more details of the secret meeting at a central London hotel with his
Guardian, London (2003). 'Kelly's friend and the note Hutton has not revealed. German colonel shared scientist's views on
WMDs - but we cannot see her crucial evidence,' Martin Bright and Gaby Hinsliff.'
Guardian, London (2004). ''Susan Watts. 'BBC Newsnight science editor who spoke to Dr Kelly about the September


Guardian, London (2003).'What Kelly really thought about the war in Iraq. Julie Flint, a Middle East expert and former
Observer reporter, describes the UN weapons inspector she knew and respected and how he agreed to write down his
thoughts on Saddam's weapons and menace.'
Guardian, London (2004).'WMD: How it went wrong: Since David Kay's bombshell last week, intelligence experts are
revealing the truth behind Saddam's threat to the West...'
Guardian, London (2010). Rowe, Dorothy. Profile:
Guardian, London (2010). A life in psychology: Dorothy Rowe:
Guardian, London (2011).'Colin Powell demands answers over Curveball's WMD lies.'
Guardian, London (2003).''Iraqi mobile labs nothing to do with germ warfare, report finds...''
Guardian, London (2003). Andrew Gilligan: 'I did not betray David Kelly or reveal him as my source. Andrew Gilligan
disputes Nick Cohen's comment on the politics behind the death of the government scientist caught up in the Iraq inquiry.'''
Guardian, London (2003). Simon Hoggart's sketch:''Don't blame the MPs; they perform a crucial role.'
Guardian, aka the Observer, London (2003). 'Only regime change will avert the threat. Here we reprint Dr David Kelly's
article, written days before the Iraq war, in which he assessed the threat from Saddam.'
Guardian, aka the Observer, London (2008). 'Proof! Just six degrees of separation between us: After checking 30 billion
electronic messages, Microsoft researchers say the theory stands up.'
Hawton, Professor Keith (2003). Psychiatrist, expert witness: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry. (Tuesday, 2 September 2003).
Hawton, Professor Keith (2003). Psychiatrist, expert witness: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry. (Wednesday, 24 September 2003).
Holmes, Louise (2003). Search team: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Hunt, Dr Nicholas (2003). Forensic Pathologist, Home Office accredited: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Hunt, Vanessa (2003). Ambulance, Paramedic: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Hussein, Saddam. Begone, Demons. Published under the title, Devil's Dance ("Akuma no Dance"). Tokyo, Tokuma Shoten
Publishing (2006).
Hutton Inquiry (2003). Evidence: From Dr Kelly's home computer.
Hutton Inquiry (2003). Evidence: From Dr Kelly's home.
Hutton Inquiry (2003). Evidence: Dr Kellys evidence to Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).
Hutton, Lord (2004). Report of the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr David Kelly C.M.G:
Hutton, Lord (2004). Report of the Inquiry into the Circumstances Surrounding the Death of Dr David Kelly C.M.G: Summary


of Conclusions.
Hutton Inquiry Evidence (2003). Evidence: One page of "Gabriele's concerns" released.
Independent, London (2007).'Kelly family appeals for calm after new murder claims by MP.' BY BRIAN BRADY AND RACHEL
Jones, Robert Alun. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications (1986).
Kelly, Janice & Pape, Sarah (2003). Family of Dr Kelly: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry the same day, Monday 1
September, 2003.
Mail on Sunday, London (2010). 'There wasn't much blood about. Detective who found weapons expert David Kelly's body
raises questions over his death.'
McIvor, Mark. the fuss about Sutch?
McIvor, Mark. the fuss about Kelly?
Morrison, John NL (2003). Letter in the Guardian, London. Section: Letters: - 'Inside the [Rockingham] Cell.'
New York Times (2003). '...Blair Calls Weapons Expert's Suicide a Tragedy.'
O'Neill, Brendan, aka Spike, (2010), London, England. Blogger: Spiked! Down with determinism! In defence of free will:
'The chattering classes favourite conspiracy theory.'
O'Neill, Brendan, aka Spike (2010). London, England. Blog: 'Hans Blix's Stalinist rewriting of history: Far from being anti-war
heroes, UN weapons inspectors paved the way for the bombing of the bastards and moral lepers of Iraq.'
Opposing views dot com. Blog: On, Carter, Jimmy: 'Eric Snowdens Exposure Of NSA Spying Program Was Beneficial.'
Page, Michael (2003). Assistant Chief Constable, Thames Valley Police: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Page, Michael (2003). Assistant Chief Constable, Thames Valley Police: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Porter, Bernard. Plots And Paranoia: A history of political espionage in Britain, 1790 1988. London, Unwin Hyman (1989).
Rimington, Stella. Open Secret: The Autobiography of the Former Director-General of MI5. London Arrow Books (2002).
Ritter, William Scott. Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem Once and For All. New York, USA: Simon & Schuster (1999).
Ronayne, Chris. Rudi Gopas: a biography. Auckland, NZ: David Ling Publishing (2002).
Rufford, Nick (2003). Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Sawyer, Martyn (2003). Police Constable: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry (Pt. 1).
Sawyer, Martyn (2003). Police Constable: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry (Pt. 2).
Schultz, Julianne. Reviving the fourth estate. Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press (1998).

67 Scotland (2004). 'Kelly ''could not have died'' from knife wound, paramedics claim.'
Short, Clare (2003). Clare Short's resignation letter: ''Text of the international development secretary's letter to the prime
minister.'' Posted in the Guardian.
Sullivan, Andrew. Garman, Joss (2010): Once they denied relativity... On physicist Joergen van Dongen.
Sunday Telegraph, London (2010).''David Kelly: 'Case closed: The details of Dr David Kelly's death, made public last week,
should provide a final answer to the conspiracy theorists.'''
Sunday Times, London (2003). 'Saddam weapons chief seized: US interrogates chemical supremo as Allies battle to seal
escape routes.'''
Sunday Times, London (2003). 'Saddam weapons chief seized: US interrogates chemical supremo as Allies battle to seal
escape routes.'
Sunday Times, London (2007). Review by Nick Rufford: The Strange Death of David Kelly, by Norman Baker.
Taylor, Winifred Ann (2003). Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, UK, as on 16 July 2003, the day of Dr Kelly's
examination by that committee then. Taylor's evidence given the Hutton Inquiry Wednesday, 27 August 2003 See,
beginning, 163: 9...
Talieva, Renan (2004). USA. Blogger: 'Dead Scientists: THE STRANGE "SUICIDE" OF DAVID KELLY: Questions for
the coroner's inquest.' Belfast (2011).'Doctors claim cover-up over death of weapons expert Dr David Kelly.'
The Free library, by Farlex (1997).''No Gaynor without pain for Cook and his lover.''
The Telegraph, London (2010).''Pathologist report, David Kelly.''
The Telegraph, London (2004).''American tells of her friendship with Kelly.'''
The Telegraph, London (2003). 'Dad said interrogator MP was utter bastard.'
The Telegraph, London (2003). 'He felt let down and betrayed.'
The Telegraph, London (2003).'Kelly felt betrayed by MoD.'
The Telegraph, London (2003). 'Letter hinted at knighthood.'
The Telegraph, London (2014). Dominic Selwood: How Protestantism fuelled Europe's deadly witch craze. deadly-witch-craze/
The New Scientist (2005). 'Human beings are actors, not puppets.' (Magazine issue 2485).
The Truth Seeker, online. USA (2010). 'Who Was Behind the Death of Dr David Kelly?'
Thursby, Rowena (2007). Hampshire, UK. Blogger:
UK Parliament, publications (17 March, 2003). Robin Cook: Personal statement.
UK Parliament, publications (17 July, 2003). Oral evidence (taken before the Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday 15 July
2003): Witness: DR DAVID KELLY, Special Adviser to the Director, Counter-proliferation and arms control, Ministry of
Defence... Examined.


Webb, Geoffrey (2003). Police Officer, Detective Sergeant: Evidence given the Hutton Inquiry.
Wells transcript, this PDF from the Guardian:
Wikipedia: On, Begone, Demons.,_Demons
Wikipedia: On, Operation Rockingham...'
Wikipedia: On, David Kelly (weapons expert).
Wikipedia: On, David Kelly. Appearance before House of Commons committees.
Wikipedia: On, Epictetus.
Wikipedia: On, Existential Crisis.
Wikipedia: On, 'To be, or not to be...,_or_not_to_be
Wikipedia: On, Hans Blix.
Wikipedia: On, Niels Bohr.
Wikipedia: On, Henry Miller.
Wikipedia: On, Robin Cook.
Wikipedia: On, Herbert Spencer.
Wikipedia: On, Max Weber.
Wikipedia: On, Paranoia.
Wikipedia: On, Paraphrenia.
Wikipedia: On, Paul Tillich.
Wikipedia: On, Positivism.
Wikipedia: On, Project Babylon.
Wikipedia: On, Dr Kelly's appearance before House of Commons committees...
Wikipedia: On, The Wind in the Willows.''
Wikipedia: On, Reciprocity (social psychology). And for a
less detailed look at these principles:
Wikipedia: On, Totemism.
Wolfe, Patrick. Settler Colonialism. London, New York, Sydney and Delhi, Continuum International... (1998).