I recently located the BBC video from the Hutton Inquiry, the official judicial investigation into the events surrounding the July, 2003, death of Dr. David Kelly, a respected government biological scientist in the U.K., and a leading arms inspector in Iraq prior to the current invasion and occupation. Dr. Kelly was found dead near his home; supposedly a suicide after becoming embroiled in the early debate regarding blatant lying by the Blair government about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. A cursory investigation by the local coroner, apparently with a wink and a nod to London, concluded that Dr. Kelly had killed himself, although the manner in which this happened was not particularly clear. The emerging details pointed so strongly toward a badly botched murder, including or at least followed by official complicity, that a major outcry quickly followed.
At that moment a great deal of time and effort had been invested to permit the U.S. and U.K. to masquerade as the “good guys” in an invasion of Iraq (and beyond) that had been planned for years. Official reports, like the one that claimed Iraq was capable of launching biological or chemical weapons in 45 minutes, were vital to the charade. Today, everyone understands that it was all a lie, and no one seems to care. In July of 2003 the idea that an expert was willing to call the government’s bluff, even though initially off the record, created great concern if not outright panic.
Prime Minister Tony Blair appointed Baron James Brian Edward Hutton, referred to as Lord Hutton, to conduct an official judicial investigation into the events surrounding Dr. Kelly’s death. It is clear in hindsight that the real purpose had little to do with Kelly, but was to shield the internal propaganda effort for a little bit longer. Hutton a retired judge with a rather dubious record, is described as a “Law Lord”, a term that sounds like bad science fiction. However a U.S. approximation, with similar results, might be the appointment of Chief Justice Earl Warren to investigate the Kennedy assassination.
While bogus investigations and commissions have become commonplace in modern times, the Hutton Inquiry is nonetheless official and presumably represents the most that modern Britons may hope for from their country’s judicial system. This is important to remember, because the real issue is whether citizens may be killed by their own government, and have their death swept under the rug, simply because they become inconvenient or embarrassing.
You can view the video of Lord Hutton’s amazing presentation in which he summarizes the conclusions of his investigation via Internet from the BBC archives. Although it is intensely boring you will no doubt be struck, as I was, by the fact that the man seems extraordinarily reluctant to look anyone in the eye as he delivers his report. To me this was a good sign. My purpose was to discover the hidden truth behind Hutton’s words using the medium of reversed speech. His demeanor suggested there would be a lot to find.
Words and phrases revealed when ordinary speech is reversed come from unconscious mental processes and quickly reveal the truth of any situation, regardless of what a person seems to be telling you at the time. A full explanation is available by clicking on the link at the top of this page. In this case I fully expected to gain a reliable indication of the truth or falsity of Hutton’s investigation and report. More than this I also planned to look for clues about what really happened to Dr. David Kelly. You will see as the story unfolds that there are many.
I. The Hutton Whitewash
Six months after beginning his investigation Lord Hutton reported his findings. In a methodical fashion he listed every point at which the government might possibly be at fault, including points no one had thought of, and dismissed each one. There was little indication that actual deliberation or investigation was involved, and conflicting facts were never mentioned. In fact, the details of Dr. Kelly’s death were hardly mentioned at all. The direction of investigation was, “Since we all know that Dr. Kelly committed suicide, let’s look at all the issues which might have caused him to take his own life – and by the way, that obviously false report on Iraq’s readiness to use weapons of mass destruction was strictly on the up and up.
This tactic is a familiar one, most recently seen in America’s 9/11 commission. The results are a invariably a laborious show to serve some other agenda than the stated purpose. For Hutton the purpose was clear; to officially stifle any suggestion that the government had lied about the reasons for invading Iraq. Immediately following the release of the report, Blair’s previous director of communications who had been compelled to resign in the midst of the scandal trumpeted the verdict: “Today the stain on the integrity of the prime minister and the government has been removed.”
To achieve his purpose, Hutton utilized strange logic. The frightening report about Iraq’s capabilities was generated by the intelligence chief, so Blair was not actually responsible for it. When Blair asked that the report be “sexed up”, the fact that the originator “agreed” meant that the report was not actually sexed up. On points which were declared to be false by other intelligence officers, the fact that someone had listened to their complaints meant that their views had been given consideration. This being the case, nothing in the report was false.
To truly understand what happened with the Hutton Inquiry, the medium of reversed speech allows us to delve into the mind of Hutton himself, and learn his own views on the matter. We find that within the first six minutes of his presentation, he has told us everything we need to know about farcical nature of his Inquiry.
His very first sentence is typical of the information found with RS. As he begins speaking without any preliminary remarks we find that his intention is clear; to get right down to the purpose of the presentation. However we know that he is upset an because an advance copy of the actual report which was given to a newspaper that morning has already been partially leaked to the public. The reversal “IT SHARED” reflects his irritation with the newspaper. If this hadn’t been noted in other published articles, or at the conclusion of the talk, the meaning of the reversal would not really be understandable.
However his appearance that day is referred to as “A SKIT”. In RS the connotations of words are important because words are treated by the unconscious almost as if they were images which specifically evoke certain feelings or responses. A skit is rehearsed performance of no great significance, often performed solely for entertainment purposes. Describing his appearance with this term is an early tipoff that things are not what they seem.
He apparently believes that his “primary duty” is to “SING LIKE A BIRD”. Unfortunately, the term is rather opaque. We are not sure what this phrase means to Hutton, himself. In some places it could mean to tell all. In others it might imply only a masterful vocal performance. However as he speaks about his duties we get a quick snapshot of what is really going on. I feel that Hutton’s “MONSTERS” can only refer to the people he has been dealing with. This would be those who gave him his task, or those who caused the problem. Perhaps they are even the same.
But the basic situation is that the government has produced an official report to the effect that country is in such grave danger it’s only option is to go to war. We know from other work done on the Middle East situation that this is all for the financial benefit of the key players, including the obvious large corporations in the oil business who hope to gain control of the entire Middle East before the adventure is over. And all plan to benefit greatly from the expenditures of taxpayer funds and soldiers’ lives.
Sending the country to war purely for private gain is certainly treason on the largest scale. Hutton confirms this quite strongly with the joined sequence of reversals, “YOU KNOW – TREASON – I SEE IT.”
I’ve also included here a reversal that followed these others. I suspect it refers to an office, an organization, or a unit of some kind. The best guess at spelling would be “NICEP”. Without a reference this reversal is meaningless. Yet if we run across it in some other way it may be helpful. Perhaps it is the organization that ordered or carried out the murder of Dr. Kelly. On the other hand we have something that sounds like a “SALK unit” later on, and that also is an unknown with the same possibilities; ie. A slim chance of significance, but none at all if we didn’t mention it for someone else to notice.
And speaking of notices, it appears that “the relevant facts surrounding Dr. Kelly’s death” may have been subject to “D-NOTICE” press censorship. Since the details regarding the body and its discovery are already quite damning, one can only wonder what other pieces of information were deemed so damaging that they had to be suppressed.
Although we don’t know how Hutton came to be the one to deliver the whitewash (there are a number of references to money, even gold, but they are just as likely to refer to his personal affairs) it is clear that has made frank assessment of the situation and is not comfortable with it. Pity that he did not have the personal honor to do his job honestly. As the topic of his speech turns to the people who “took various decisions and carried out various actions” relating to Dr. Kelly, we find that Hutton’s feeling is that it is “SAD” that there will be “NO JUSTICE” for Kelly or his family, and his personal desire is simply, “LETS GET YOU OUT OF THIS”.
Yet he is determined to play his role. He asserts that actual transcripts of “the evidence” (backing up the no-fault verdict) are in the report rather than summaries so that the public may be fully informed. Yet his unconscious critic, that voice that as often called the conscience, lets us know that this concern for the public is “PURE BALONEY”. Interestingly, the word evidence seems to spark a comment as well. The phrase “THEY”VE SMASHED IT”, if related to evidence, suggests that there is no longer a way by which the truth can be proved in court. Either evidence has been destroyed, or the legal avenues have now been blocked. Regarding the latter, we find that the coroner who’s fumbling attempt at a whitewash of his own was the cause of the original outrage has now declared that the only person on the planet who could reopen the half-hearted original inquest is Mrs. Kelly, and she has no desire to do so.
If you are old enough, you have seen this ploy before. Famous variations include the locking up of physical evidence from the Kennedy assassination in the National Archives to “protect the feelings of the family” until the evidence could be quietly destroyed. It would seem that widows are too often easily threatened or otherwise persuaded that pursuing justice would not be worthwhile, although we have no knowledge of that in this particular case – so far.
In the absence of what should have been a great deal of evidence, the purpose of the Hutton Inquiry is to give the impression that it is somehow proven that Dr. David Kelly, succumbing to various “pressures and strains”, took his own life in a way that many experts have flatly stated is simply not possible. As Hutton arrives at this point in his introduction, a quick set of four reversals seem to approach Kelly’s death and the suicide claim from four different directions. That the man would be missed was certainly true, but I must confess I have no idea what FIDLEY might be or why Hutton seems to have a low opinion of those who work there. Nor can I pick out exactly which piece of murder or misdirection THEY ALL DON’T GET.
But I can fully understand that by delivering a verdict he knows is false, the “Law Lord” has taken a path from which there is no return. His reference to “MY TREASON” in the same breath as the suicide theory, makes it clear that he is now just as guilty as the people he was supposed to investigate.
This is the first part of a multi-part story. Section II will address the clues available in Hutton’s presentation that shed light on the true details of Kelly’s murder.