|現在地 HOME > 掲示板 > 戦争３９ > 319.html ★阿修羅♪||
(回答先: The Daily TelegraphのHutton Inquiryまとめ記事（Opinion） 投稿者 YOS 日時 2003 年 9 月 27 日 01:21:49)
Kelly 'was used as a pawn' in battle with BBC
By Sandra Laville and Neil Tweedie
The family of David Kelly were described as angry, hurt and frustrated yesterday but were not, according to their counsel, seeking revenge or retribution.
Speaking for the Kelly family, Jeremy Gompertz, QC, said Dr Kelly had been deliberately used as a political pawn in the Government's battle with the BBC, something that had left him broken hearted and in such despair he seemed to have taken his own life.
"This was a cynical abuse of power which deserves the strongest possible condemnation," he said.
Janice Kelly and her daughters accused the Government of "hypocrisy" and Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, of lying, when they denied the existence of a deliberate strategy to use Dr Kelly to undermine Andrew Gilligan's report.
In failing to support Dr Kelly or to ask his consent to release his name, his managers at the ministry had displayed a "total lack of care" and exhibited no "common decency".
While the BBC escaped serious criticism, the Today journalist Gilligan was deemed by the Kelly family as an "unreliable historian" and they submitted that no credence should be placed on what he said without corroboration.
The true extent of the family's grief and distress was exposed as the Hutton Inquiry drew its evidential sessions to a close yesterday after 22 days of evidence and more than 70 witnesses.
The nation, said the family, had lost its greatest expert on biological weapons of mass destruction, a man who had served his country with loyalty and distinction throughout his life, who was being considered for a knighthood but had maintained his modesty and shied away from the limelight.
But, Mr Gompertz said: "He was characterised by his employers, to suit the needs of the hour, as a middle ranking official and used as a pawn in their political battle with the BBC."
He said the family were not seeking to blame individual scapegoats. Instead they wanted the "duplicity" of the Government in its handling of Dr Kelly to be exposed and the "systematic failures" at the MoD to be identified and remedied.
Mr Gompertz went on: "The Government and the MoD do not accept that any criticism should be made of any government action or that any blame should be attached to any individual involved."
He contrasted that with the BBC, which had accepted criticisms and admitted errors.
It was the family's case that the Government made a deliberate decision to use Dr Kelly as part of its strategy in its battle with the BBC. That included putting him before a televised sitting of the Commons foreign affairs committee and coaching him so that he would prove Gilligan was unreliable.
The denials of this policy by Government witnesses including Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair and Mr Hoon were "hypocrisy", which had been exposed by the publication of Mr Campbell's diaries.
Mr Hoon, they said, had been shown to be an "enthusiastic supporter" of this plot to put Dr Kelly's name in the public domain. "The Secretary of State's denials of the Government strategy were false," Mr Gompertz said.
Part of this policy was to use a press release and a question-and-answer briefing to release Dr Kelly's name. But the weapons expert had been kept in the dark and his consent had never been asked, something that went against "common decency".
"He hadn't committed a disciplinary offence, he wasn't on trial and he was entitled to fair treatment."
Mr Gompertz said the family had been "deeply hurt and angered" at the suggestion by Richard Hatfield, director of personnel at the MoD, that Dr Kelly was the author of his own misfortune. Mr Hatfield's claim that the support Dr Kelly received was "outstanding" would be "risible" if the issues were not so serious.
Turning to Gilligan, counsel said his accounts of his meeting with Dr Kelly had "been demonstrated to be unreliable".
His failure to keep a manuscript note of the meeting and to record properly the words spoken by Dr Kelly showed no credence should be placed on his uncorroborated evidence.
Mrs Kelly and her family also attacked the "confrontational" nature of some journalists and the media frenzy before and after her husband's death.
Having been exposed to the full glare of publicity, Dr Kelly was in the last days of his life "tired, stressed and unhappy".
"The public exposure must have brought about a total loss of self esteem, a feeling that people had lost trust in him," the lawyer said. "In his despair he seems to have taken his own life."