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.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article
are the sole responsibility of the author and do
not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for
Research on Globalization.
The Centre
for Research on Globalization (CRG) at
www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to
cross-post original Global Research articles in
their entirety, or any portions thereof, on
community internet sites, as long as the text &
title are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address
to the original CRG article must be indicated.
The author's copyright note must be displayed.
For publication of Global Research articles in
print or other forms including commercial
internet sites, contact:
crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca
contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by
the copyright owner. We are making such material
available to our readers under the provisions of
"fair use" in an effort to advance a better
understanding of political, economic and social
issues. The material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving it for research and
educational purposes. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes other than
"fair use" you must request permission from the
copyright owner.