BBC Says Dead Scientist Was Iraq Source

[Khephra]

LONDON -- The British Broadcasting Corp. said Sunday that David Kelly, a scientist whose apparent suicide intensified a debate over whether the government inflated claims about Iraqi weapons, was its main source for a story at the center of the dispute.

"Having now informed Dr. Kelly's family, we can confirm that Dr. Kelly was the principal source" for a story in which reporter Andrew Gilligan quoted an anonymous official as saying the government had inflated claims of Iraqi weapons, the network said in a statement.

"The BBC believes we accurately interpreted and reported the factual information obtained by us during interviews with Dr. Kelly," the statement continued.

The statement said Kelly had also been the source for a piece by reporter Susan Watts on the BBC's "Newsnight" analysis program.

more..............

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-britain-weapons-adviser,0,2834572.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

[SoCalDem]

1. So......

It's all tied up with a big shiny bow, and put away for good???

Where do they go from here???

[Maddy McCall]

3. I think this is far from over...

My god, the Bush-Blair house of cards is tumbling--a new card falls every day.


It isn't over, SoCal: I think it is just the beginning. I think this story is FAR from over.

Edited: was nonsensical

[Capt_Nemo]

2. Right now things don't add up

Kelly stated to the FAC that he didn't believe he was the main source.

BBC now says he was the main source.

Either Kelly's statement to the FAC was an evasive manouvre he
improvised in the moment, or the BBC is lying to cover the true
"mole".

[TheBigGuy]

7. Theres a lie here somewhere.

BBC or Kelly.

This is getting to be really interesting!

[TahitiNut]

12. I don't think it'd be unusual

for a journalist (BBC) to exploit a source (Kelly) by portraying their knowledge from "other sources" as greater than it was. It's not at all clear who approached whom. It seems to me that BBC dogged Kelly given his prominent position. Kelly was apparently someone whose conscience placed him in an intractible position given what he knew about where the "bodies were buried" and his commitment to maintaining (perverted) confidentiality. Britain's Secrets Act is quite heavy-handed, AFAIK.

[radwriter0555]

21. Dead Men Tell No Tales.. now do they?

Of course he's the main source. He's dead and who is going to prove otherwise?

Why do you think he got dead?

Luckily, BLAIR has an airtight alibi, eh?

"whew"

Sure let's a lotta people off the hook, since all they can do is SPECULATE.

[goforit]

23. Yep...you got that right!

:tinfoilhat:

And the clock is ticking!

[Maddy McCall]

4. LINK: Kelly's neighbor asserts that Kelly was made "the fall guy"

In Southmoor - a hamlet little more than a bend in the road, with a Methodist church, hairdresser, newsstand, convenience store and pub - family and friends remembered Kelly for his integrity. Some complained a decent man had been exploited by ruthless politicians trying to duck a scandal.

"Events over recent weeks have made David's life intolerable, and all of those involved should reflect long and hard on this fact," the Kelly family said in a statement Saturday. "A loving private and dignified man has been taken from us all."

Steven Ward, landlord of the Hinds Head pub, said, "He's been made a fall guy."

"David's too straight. David wouldn't lie about anything," Ward said. "This is Blair and his cronies trying to find someone to get them out."

http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BRITAIN_WEAPONS_ADVISER?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[T_i_B]

5. From the BBC story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3081027.stm

According to television journalist Tom Mangold, a friend, Dr Kelly believed he was the source for about 60% of Mr Gilligan's report.

Where is the other 40%?

[TheBigGuy]

8. The missing 40%

Thankis for that info. So Kelly was a substaintial souce but still not the only source.


...probably the "sexed up" part is in that 40%.

[Jack Rabbit]

19. BBC Statement Confirming Kelly as a Source

From the BBC Online
Dated Sunday July 21 12:21 GMT (4:21 am PDT)

BBC statement: Full text
Director of BBC News Richard Sambrook made the following statement confirming that Dr David Kelly was the source for the BBC's controversial report over the Iraq weapons dossier.

The BBC deeply regrets the death of Dr David Kelly. We had the greatest respect for his achievements in Iraq and elsewhere over many years and wish once again to express our condolences to his family.
There has been much speculation about whether Dr Kelly was the source for the Today programme report by Andrew Gilligan on 29 May.
Having now informed Dr Kelly's family, we can confirm that Dr Kelly was the principal source for both Andrew Gilligan's report and for Susan Watts' reports on Newsnight on 2 and 4 June.

Read more.

[FlaGranny]

6. It makes me wonder if he wasn't "pressured"

into his testimony. Maybe he felt the safest thing for his family was to do as he was told. Just conjecture on my part.

Edit: added word.

[jmcgowanjm]

9. Desperate Blair blames Hoon

Hoon admitted that he had asked the committee to "be gentle" with Kelly.

http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/politics.cfm?id=786292003

[jmcgowanjm]

10. calls for Blair to cut short world tour

But David Clark, former

adviser to the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook, claimed Campbell was now "a liability".

"When we are in a situation where a press secretary is chairing meetings of the Joint Intelligence Committee, something unique is happening to the British constitution," he told Scotland on Sunday. "Campbell’s position has become untenable."

[jmcgowanjm]

11. Labour party last night appeared to be on the brink of civil war. n/t

[goforit]

24. We all should be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:argh:

[goforit]

25. Blair?....He would still be here if you did what was right! & ya didn't

:argh:

[TahitiNut]

13. Killing the Messenger.

Quite literally. :puke:

[Rose Siding]

15. This confirmation by the BBC

adds a simplistic motive for both suicide and murder.

A couple of reports have said he was one of those (like his bud, Judith Miller) who considered Saddam a serious threat. If his belief had changed enough for him to source the BBC's story, the MoD or neocons or whoever might want him silenced or punished (?- sounds soooo Agatha Christie to actually write it!).

OTOH, some personal ethics conflict at being found out could have shaken him to the point of suicide. He obviously wasn't comfortable with the govt knowing all about his dealings with the BBC because he would only admit to a percentage of the story being based on info from him. He may not have trusted the BBC to keep his id secret- although they did until after his death.

Remaining Q's-

Why was he held at a safe house for 2 days?

Why did some of his e-mails sent just before his walk address plans and speculation about later in the week?

If he was such a staunch believer in Iraq wmd, why the BBC story at all?

Why do all the reports use the term "suicide" so autoritatively before the post?

What else?...

[janx]

17. Why the safe house? Did you see the grilling he got by the MPs?

They were out for blood, by friend. And he did commit suicide, and blood is on their hands.

[Rose Siding]

18. I see that you're certain he killed himself

But your belief doesn't answer the other questions. Many wits are "grilled" and survive emotionally.

[reorg]

22. I don't think he changed his mind on Iraq's WMD

>A couple of reports have said he was one of those (like his bud, Judith Miller) who considered Saddam a serious threat. If his belief had changed enough for him to source the BBC's story, the MoD or neocons or whoever might want him silenced or punished<

Instead of relying on perhaps misleading characterisations in "a couple of reports" you can read for yourself what he said before the Foreign Relations Committee:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/uc1025-i/uc102502.htm


He clearly stuck to the government's line in the September report of Iraq being "a serious and a current threat". He qualified this as "a threat to its neighbours and to the INTERESTS of the UK" (emphasis added).

His belief was that there is a "30 percent probability" of Iraq possessing WMD (implying that more probably there aren't any left) - which may or may not translate to a "current and serious threat" - the more pertinent question being: is this enough to convince a parliament to go to war?

As to the question of how the "45 minutes" claim made its way into the report, I find the following statements very interesting:

1. He was "THE senior adviser to the proliferation and arms control secretariat" (emphasis added) with particular expertise in biological and chemical weapons.

2. He had access to all available intelligence in this field.

3. He did NOT contribute to the "intelligence part" of the September report and was not involved in discussions about it.

4. The "45 minute" claim "became apparent to (him) on publication" (i. e. in September).

5. He claims he had "no doubts on the veracity" of the September report and that "the general tenet of that document is one that (he is) sympathetic to".

6. And yet, when asked about the plausibility of the "45 minutes" claim he elaborates:

"Basically it would be very difficult to see how Iraq could deploy in 45 minutes. ... It makes a number of assumptions, that the weapons were all ready to go in the right place with whatever system was being used with the right tracking to attack, and that is very unlikely. We are talking in terms of Iraq, in terms of what we knew ten years ago, a country which filled its weapons to use them, it did not maintain a stockpile of filled weapons, with the exception of mustard gas. It is actually quite a long and convoluted process to go from having bulk agent and munitions to actually getting them to the bunker for storage and then issue them and subsequently deploy them."


I find all this entirely consistent with the BBC reports of a questionable claim being inserted in the September report at the last minute without checking it with the relevant experts - and at the same time it is consistent with the stance of a scientific expert who is loyal to his government and employer and would neither meddle with tactics and considerations of politicians nor engage in deliberate lies and deception.

Why, where and when did he "change his belief"?


I think he was shut up for good because he was undermining the government's position on the September report - as shown above even in his oral testimony before the Committee (Tony Blair on July 9 before the same Committee "there could not be a more serious allegation" - in answer to the question of whether questionable intelligence was inserted at the last minute for publicity reasons).

He also could no longer be trusted to achieve the necessary results in the search for WMD as leader (or prominent member) of the inspection team leaving for Iraq in the next few weeks. Mr. Blair on July 9 was still "absolutely convinced" that they will be found ... by way of interviewing all the relevant Iraqi scientists ...

[nolabels]

31. Got's to be more B.S.

Am I wrong that most of the Iraq Arms inspectors were quite willing to sign off on Sadam being disarmed? Where is Scot Ritter? I sure he will have something to say about all this supposed paranoia that's been harbored by a mur……… err suicidal man.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. This was not the first time Kelly

was willing to talk to the press.

He has been a quoted source for Judith Miller going back to 1998. It seems to me, that Kelly didn't mind 'leaking' info to journalists, for a number of years. Not the kind of guy, the BCF wants running around and flapping his mouth right now.

[Rose Siding]

16. Miller uses Chalabi, too.

She doesn't seem to be very discerning about the motives of a source.

[RainDog]

29. Kelly in Miller's book, Germs

Kelly is in Miller's book, Germs, in one instance because he debriefed Vladimir Pasechnik. Pasechnik defected from the Soviet Union in 1989. He worked on germ weapons.

V.P. claimed the Soviets had succeeded in creating an "improved" version of the Black Death.

You might also recognize his name from this:

"November 21, 2001 (B): Dead microbiologist: World-class microbiologist and high-profile Russian defector Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, 64, dies of a stroke. Pasechnik, who defected to Britain in 1989, had played a huge role in the development of Russian biowarfare, heading a lab of 400 "with an unlimited budget" and "the best staff available." He says he succeeded in producing an aerosolized plague microbe that could survive outside the laboratory. He was connected to Britain's spy agency and recently had started his own company. "In the last few weeks of his life he had put his research on anthrax at the disposal of the Government, in the light of the threat from bioterrorism." "

(from Paul Thompson's site...by way of the Globe?)

Miller has this to say about Kelly-

(He) was a skilled interrogator...(he was in the USSR to inspect possible germ sites and was, apparently, successful, combined with knowledge from V.Pasechnik)...

"The American-British trips through the Soviet Union were models of how arms inspectors could work closely with intelligence agencies." (p128)...but then goes on to say the CIA did not want to share info with the inspectors b/c of other nations' access to the same info via this int'l group...

but as for Miller's claim that Kelly's belief that Iraq had hidden germ weapons...well, Miller implies that her source for this is an Iraqi "insider" -- and considering her reliance on Chalabi, I would think Kelly's belief in WMD in Iraq would also stem from the same CIA informant source.

(which leads me to wonder what Kelly thought about the recent discovery that Chalabi was feeding Miller info, that Chalabi was Cheney's chosen puppet, that the CIA was getting info from Chalabi..and Hussein's son who defected...I wonder what Kelly thought of all this. It seems, from his emails, that he still thought it necessary to verify weapons issues in Iraq.

Since he was the only trained biologist on the UNSCOM team, he would have been invaluable for a trip back to Iraq.

anyway, back to Miller's info-

Kelly returned to Iraq in Sept. of 91 to look for evidence of weapons labs according to CIA info. Kelly and the UNSCOM team found a factory for making animal feed with equipment which would be considered "dual use." however, they did not find evidence to confirm that any weapons had been produced at this site (al Hakam.)

later, however, Miller claims the inspectors had seen bombs in another facility which had germ warheads and lied to the inspectors about this...and the inspectors apparently simply believed this and didn't verify?

an aside from Miller's book, Germs- apparently Al Tuwaitha, the site where nuclear waste was emptied from barrels for locals to hold drinking water was suspected, back in the 90s, as a germ warfare lab too.  

[Fleshdancer]

20. Do you think the wife will someday speak up?

I don't know about this marriage, but in mine, if this happened to my husband I would be out for blood. There are just so many unanswered questions to this.

[goforit]

26. Yes she will. If she truely doesn't believe Kelly would do it!

I am not convinced that this was not an "ASSISTED SUICIDE",
due to the e-mail sent to J. Miller.

:think:

[0007]

27. Self preservation

is a very strong urge in human beings.

[grasswire]

28. his daughter was getting married in a few weeks

It doesn't make sense for a man who is making plans for later in the week and who has such a sentimental family moment coming up to commit suicide.

[VolcanoJen]

30. KICK!!

:dem:

[BelgianMadCow]

32. This is just a kick

to a wonderfull thread, with a great DU discussion of the type I love to read.
And since I know I'm not the only reader, a BIG thanks to all the avid posters here ! :bounce: :toast: :bounce:

:kick:

my 2 cents : Dr. Kelly doesn't strike me as the type to kill himself in such a messy way, with all due respect. I just saw CNN headline, with info about Dr. Kelly's role, the last sentence was something like "and the question will be - how much did he, or did he not, tell the BBC?"
This is gonna be decided in court; BBC has announced it will hand over interview transcripts.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

33. BBC under fire as it admits Dr Kelly was source...

The BBC's credibility was called into question today after the corporation named David Kelly as the BBC's main source for Andrew Gilligan's Iraq dossier story which sparked the ferocious row with the government.

In a statement, the director of news Richard Sambrook revealed that the Ministry of Defence microbiologist, who committed suicide on Friday, was the principle source for reports that intelligence on Iraq was "sexed up".

....

The effect of the statement was to immediately shift focus from Tony Blair and onto the BBC with several politicians lining up to call for resignations at the top of the corporation.

...

"This raises extremely serious questions about the way the BBC is run; its credibility and its future as a public sector, publicly funded organisation," said Mr Kaufman.

...

Robert Jackson launched a scathing attacked on the BBC - he accused Gilligan of "sexing up" his own report and says the reporter is partly to blame for Dr Kelly's death.

...

And he told BBC News 24: "I think the fact of the matter is that Gilligan, under pressure from his news colleagues for a scoop, for an exclusive story, under pressure from the wider BBC establishment and its general vendetta against the government on the question of the war against Iraq, I believe he sexed up the whole story and this created the situation that led to the death of my consitutent.

...

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1002089,00.html

[tlb]

35. It's becoming more likely the " dark actors " are in the BBC.

Worst possible time for this too with the BBC Charter up for renewal.

[Maddy McCall]

34. kick

:kick:

[cantwealljustgetalong]

36. Cracks appear in BBC ranks as executives face staff revolt...

...

A cloud of gloom descended over the organisation when it admitted that Dr Kelly was Gilligan's source. One well-known BBC name said of the BBC's announcement yesterday: "It's a bombshell. Like many others here, I had the impression that the source was not Kelly. My worry is that we may have misdescribed him right at the start, when we called him a senior credible intelligence source. Is that really what David Kelly was? All I can say is that I hope Andrew Gilligan has got very good shorthand."

...

Many hoped that Gilligan had another source, other than Dr Kelly, for the key claim that Downing Street "sexed up" the September dossier. "We were all willing to support him, but we were desperately worried that Kelly - as it has turned out - was indeed the source."

The BBC's confirmation that Dr Kelly provided the information upon which Gilligan based his story has rocked many at the BBC. "Now that it's been revealed that Kelly was the main source, we think Gilligan should resign, and - reluctantly - Sambrook too," said one journalist.

Another said: "The BBC statement is a disaster. On the face of it, based on the evidence to hand, Gilligan sexed up his story. The only other explanation is that David Kelly wasn't being truthful to the committee, but I tend to think now that Gilligan did what he accused Campbell of. And our boss backed him. If that's true, they have tarnished each and every one of us. Until they prove otherwise they have lost my confidence. They should go."

...

The important question - which remains unanswered - is whether Dr Kelly was rowing back from the Gilligan report earlier in the day, or whether Gilligan himself "sexed up" the quotes.

BBC executives have staked their reputation on the defence of the Gilligan story. If Gilligan falls, the positions of them all are in doubt: Mr Sambrook has been the public face of the BBC's defence; his deputy, Mark Damazer, has been intricately involved in the drawing up of the BBC's defence; and Kevin Marsh, the respected and experienced Today editor, was responsible for airing the story in the first place.

Gilligan himself is said to be distraught and "in a panic", aware that the mood has changed.

...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1002356,00.html

[Nihil]

37. BBC execs would only lose their job, not their life

> Gilligan himself is said to be distraught and "in a panic", aware
> that the mood has changed.

Not that the death of a close informant has anything to do with his "panic" of course?
Don't go for any walks just yet old chap.

With regards to the change of tack - Kelly becoming a primary source rather than a minor
source - if I was the other "senior intelligence official" quoted, I would make damn sure
that the story got out that Kelly was the main man ... as soon as I found out about his
'untimely' death ... "No guv'nor, it weren't me, it must 'ave been 'im."

Nihil