The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©

The "Murder" of Dr. David Kelly:
Alex Jones interviews National Security Lawyer, MICHAEL SHRIMPTON

Sent by Rowena Thursby <>
Feb. 23, 2004

Alex Jones: Before we go to our first guest, who I’m honoured to have, well our guest for this hour, I wanted to just remined you that Dr David Kelly was the head of the Level-4 Porton Down Bio-weapons lab in Wiltshire, England. And he was then the head British weapons inspector who’d been pro-war. He then came back and leaked information that `look I’m a hawk for this war but I’m not gonna lie. Saddam doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction. And Tony Blair mis-used my assessment.’ Well suddenly he wound up dead. He told British and US colleagues that `I’m gonna be murdered and found dead in the woods if I don’t shut up.’

There were rumours of this last week that somebody who had been inside the British government had sources who said that they could confirm that Dr David Kelly had been killed, but the folks that got that story, I guess didn’t take time out to go ahead and get in contact with the individual who was bringing forward this information himself. We’ve done that and he’s coming up here in just a few minutes and we’re so honoured to have him with us here on the show. He’s Michael Shrimpton and Michael Shrimpton has a long bio. I did some research on him over the weekend. Michael Shrimpton, of course, is a national security lawyer, that is barrister, in government matters. He’s written for the Journal for International Security Affairs. He has given advice and briefed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, that’s the US Senate. He’s given speeches and consulted all over western Europe and the United States. And of course he’s been an invited guest of the State Department.

So he’s a mainstream guy, and I was very impressed talking to him. We’re about to break for a quick three minute break, come back and join a bunch of stations that carry news during this segment. And I’ll briefly re-cap who our guest is and we’ll go to him. Michael Shrimpton is on the line with us, and again we’re gonna break and come back, and he has some bombshell information for you from his sources inside MI5 and MI6. Again, he’s a national security lawyer, that is barrister, who has advised the United States Senate Intelligence Committee. So you wanna have your tape recorders going, you wanna call your friends and family and tell them to tune into this show. And one of our great writers, Simon, is going to have an article written for us by this evening that will be posted on the websites as well.

[Commercial Break]

We’re going to have an article this evening on the websites. It’ll appear first on and I wanna thank Simon, and I wanna thank Rowena and Paul Watson and all the folks that have been working on this story and for getting us this guest. And again he’s Michael Shrimpton and a national security lawyer or barrister, and he’s written for major anti-terrorism journals. He has given his expert advice to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for the US Senate, and the bio goes on and on. He’s also been involved in a lot of prominent, high profile cases in England. I came across that in my research on him. And he’s a really nice fella, during the break I was talking to him and I said `Y’know, I hope you don’t end up in the woods like Dr David Kelly’, and he said `Well, no, by going public you protect yourself.’

And that’s the truth. For other government whistleblowers, telling the truth is what protects you. If you covertly leak something, that’s what’s dangerous. So he protects himself by going on air. And obviously because of all of his sources he’s a great source for all of us.

Michael, good to have you on the show with us.

Michael Shrimpton: [inaudible]

AJ: Just, for folks around the world who aren’t very familiar with Dr David Kelly, hard to believe people aren’t, could you re-cap who he was, what happened to him and then from your sources you even know down to the specifics of how they killed him and from your sources who was behind the killing. Can you just go through it for us?

MS: Yes, David Kelly was probably the most respected microbiologist in the United Kingdom. Certainly one who specialised in weapons of mass destruction. And he was the head of our main WMD laboratory at Porton Down in Wiltshire. He was very involved in the dismantling, verification of the dismantling of the Soviet WMD programmes after the end of the Cold War. He spent some time inside what was the bad old USSR. He was the senior British inspector on UNSCOM, the UN mission inside Iraq. He spent some considerable time in Baghdad. He was working very closely with our overseas intelligence service, MI6 or the Secret Intelligence Service, and he was a major, high-value, British intelligence asset. He was a good man. Decorated, awarded the CMG, Commander of St Michael and St George. Highly regarded and well liked too within the British intelligence community, and also respected in the United States.

AJ: And then suddenly Tony Blair’s smearing him in the press and he ends up dead, and the witnesses according to the London Times and their publications, saw four men in black uniforms standing around him, they run off and `Oh, it’s a suicide’. Go over the whole controversy of, I mean Dr David Kelly was a hawk for the war, but he wasn’t going to put out false intelligence. Go through that for folks that missed out on it.

MS: Well, yes. David Kelly briefed in a British BBC journalist called Andrew Gilligan and also spoke to another journalist for the BBC Television’s Newsnight programme, and he briefed in both journalists along the lines that the case for, the WMD case for war with Iraq had been exaggerated. There’s a lot of dispute about exactly what was said and what wasn’t said. The BBC Today programme which is the leading radio current affairs programme led with a story from Andrew Gilligan, which didn’t name David Kelly as Andrew’s source. Now we know that David Kelly was, and my own intelligence sources confirmed that before the BBC itself confirmed it on Sunday 20th July. David Kelly was outed in the media, big dispute as to who authorised his name to be given to the media, and he was asked to appear before a committee in the House of Commons. There was a lot of controversy about what the government had been told, how truthful a dossier that they had prepared on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was, and shortly after he gave evidence to the House of Commons, he was found dead on Friday 18th July of last year. He was found dead. There is a dispute over exactly where he was found.

According to the official version of events he was found dead in a copse, or a wood, at a place called Harrowdown Hill, between the village where he lived and the River Thames. But the forensic tent, it’s noticeable, Alex, that the forensic tents that were set up by the local police force, Thames Valley Police, were actually set up in the field. Why you would have someone killed in the woods and have the police tent over the scene of the crime set up in the field, no-one has yet been able to explain to my satisfaction.

Now the government were blamed for causing the death, but the way the government were criticised was this: that they had caused his name to be leaked to the media. That had put him under intolerable pressure and he had allegedly committed suicide. The initial media reports all went with suicide and the mainstream media in the UK is still reporting it as a suicide. The government responded very quickly and brought in a Law Lord, Lord Hutton, who’d previously been Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. And the Hutton Inquiry has very recently reported. Lord Hutton didn’t challenge the suicide verdict, there was no cross-examination of witnesses before the Hutton Inquiry as to the cause of death. It was assumed that it was suicide and the BBC were essentially blamed for poor reporting, the government were let off the hook.

The Hutton Report, I’m sorry to say, is widely seen as a whitewash and it’s been rubbished. A very senior British Intelligence officer recently retired, a Lieutenant Colonel, Crispin Black, who was on the Defence Intelligence Staff until 2002, has basically described the report as a `laughing stock’ and I respectfully agree.

AJ: Now I’ve seen major polls where over two thirds of the British people believe it’s a complete fraud. I mean obviously Tony Blair hires one of his cronies to come in and say `Oh you didn’t do anything wrong’ and then even that’s a whitewash of a larger whitewash because obviously according to the medical reports, the coroner’s report, the doctors that have looked at it, the suicide verdict – that’s a fraud itself and let’s go into your sources and what really happened to Dr David Kelly.

MS: Absolutely, although I wouldn’t be allowed to say that Tony Blair had hired a judge, you understand that in England we don’t hire judges [chuckles]. The judge is on the State payroll anyway and I wouldn’t want to be thought of as suggesting that anybody had put a little extra funds Lord Hutton’s way. I’m quite sure Lord Hutton took no extra payment.

AJ: Well what I’m saying is, is that obviously Hutton’s been involved with what’s been called whitewashes in the past.

MS: The Report, I’m sorry to say, with respect to Lord Hutton, the Report is a complete whitewash.

AJ: Well I mean they take, I mean you have a government institution whitewashing for another government institution.

MS: Well exactly. This is the problem with appointing senior judges to hold inquiries. There’s been a lot of adverse comment in England. The senior judge is, by definition, part of the establishment. It’s very difficult to judge, of course, if he whitewashes the government, everybody says `Well it is a whitewash’. If he blames the government, well it’s asking too much of a senior judge to go around blaming the government. It’s not what senior judges do.

AJ: I mean what do you expect? I mean here we have it where Janet Reno hires somebody to investigate Waco, I mean she literally appoints the investigator. We have Bush controlling the 9/11 panel, I mean it’s ridiculous. But getting into the specifics of Dr David Kelly’s clear murder, let’s go over that.

MS: Well, absolutely. Now on Saturday 19th July, David was murdered on the 17th, on Saturday the 19th, within 48 hours of the murder, I was contacted by a British intelligence officer who told me he’d been murdered. That didn’t take me by surprise, I was suspicious of the suicide theory from the word go. Now that source told me he’d done some digging and discovered that, he didn’t name names but he discovered that it had been known about in Whitehall prior to the 17th July that David Kelly was going to be taken down. Now normally with a suicide, Alex, you appreciate that we don’t like people knowing in advance. If people know in advance of the death, that normally points away from suicide.

AJ: Yes


AJ: [Chuckles]

MS: [Chuckles] Exactly. Now a lot of work has been done since the murder, and there’s been particularly a great deal of medical research. Now it’s absolutely clear that David was murdered. The suicide theory just doesn’t hold water at all. The official version of events is that he took some Co-Proxamol tablets. Now Co-Proxamol is available in England only by prescription. There is a problem with that because there is no evidence that David Kelly was ever prescribed Co-Proxamol. Now Co-Proxamol I think is available in the United States, it’s a combination of Dextropropoxythene and paracetamol in a ratio of 1 to 10. It’s not a very powerful painkiller and the level of Co-Proxamol in the blood stream according to the official toxicology report was about one third, i.e. not enough to kill him. Now 29 tablets were allegedly missing, or were missing, from a packet of Co-Proxamol found by the body. The problem is that there is only one fifth of a tablet in the stomach and there’s no evidence of substantial vomiting. There was a little bit of vomit found on the body but not much. And there’s no analysis done of the material.

The stomach contents do not support the suggestion that he ingested 29 Co-Proxamol tablets. Interestingly, the initial media reports, and when we look at staged suicides or political assassinations, I find it very useful to concentrate on the early media reports because if there is a cover-up, usually the cover-up kicks in after 12, 24, 36 hours. The first media reports are very often the most accurate, particularly if they’re coming from local news organisations. The early media reports made no mention of a bottle of water. The theory is, Alex, that he took these Co-Proxamol tablets having set out on a walk, in the course of which he was going to commit suicide, and took with him a bottle of water to swallow the tablets. Problem – no mention in early media reports of any bottle of water. That detail was only added in after a group of concerned people in England, professionals called the `Kelly Group’ had made the point and it was already out into the open. Now, the suicide version of events can’t be right. He was found with one wrist slashed and the ulnar artery, which is the artery…

AJ: Tell you what, we’ve got a break. We’re gonna come back and go over the circumstantial evidence and then your source’s inside intelligence that say `Hey, we got the word he was about to be killed and then who killed him. We’ll talk about that too.

[Commercial Break]

AJ: Alright, this is a quick segment. We’ve got a longer segment coming up. Plenty of time to go over this evidence with our guest, and our guest would like to take calls so later in the interview, if you’d like to talk to our guest the toll-free number to join us is 1-800 259 9231.

We’re talking to Michael Shrimpton and he’s a national security barrister in England. He has given testimony and advice to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for the US Senate, and he’s obviously very knowledgeable about intelligence and the activities of intelligence agencies. He has a lot of sources in MI5 and MI6. You just heard him talk about one source inside British intelligence that said they got word that Kelly was about to be killed by the government a week or so before he actually died. I want to go back into that in more detail coming up here in a few minutes. But Mr Shrimpton was then going over the material evidence of the murder and you’ve gotten to the point of the slitting of the wrist.

MS: Yeah, he clearly didn’t slit his own wrist. The idea that he exsanguinated, that he died from haemorrhaging, he bled out from a cut to one wrist only, to the ulnar artery, is just a nonsense Alex. Firstly the artery that was cut was the ulnar artery which is more difficult to reach, it’s on the little finger side of the hand. It’s deeper than the radial artery. Why go for an artery deep in the wrist when you can slit an artery much closer to the surface of the skin. That’s the first problem

The second problem, he, according to the autopsy report, he severed or transected the artery. But once you transect an artery, we have something called vaso-constriction. The artery retracts and that promotes clotting. It’s very difficult to bleed out if you sever one artery only.

AJ: And I would second that with David Halpin, a doctor, a prominent orthopaedic surgeon, as well as Stephen Frost, specialist in diagnostics. I mean there’s a whole bunch of top-level doctors saying `This is a complete fraud.’

MS: Exactly. One doctor went around promoting the official version of events and attacked these doctors in the Guardian newspaper in England and talked about slashing `wrists’. Well David Kelly on the official version of events didn’t slash his wrists, plural, he slashed one wrist only. It’s highly unusual. Firstly, wrist slashing is not an effective method of committing sucide. One of the reasons people do it in a bath of hot water…

AJ: That keeps the veins open

MS: … Is that you need to keep the temperature high. Yup. If you’re out in the open, if you’re not keeping the temperature high, the wrists, the arteries will not stay dilated. It is very difficult indeed to bleed out in the open even if you slit both wrists. Slitting one wrist only – much less blood loss and we have conflicting accounts for the amount of blood found by the body. The most reliable eye-witnesses, in my judgement, are probably the paramedics who found him. They talked about comparatively little blood loss. There is no solid evidence that any large, that a lot of blood had left the body. There were no adequate measurements of the amount of blood left in the major vessels, in the heart and so on.

AJ: Now talking to you earlier today, it’s pretty clear that they drug him up, then as he’s dying slit his wrist to create this scene. From your sources inside the intelligence community, what really happened to Dr David Kelly?

MS: In my judgement, based on conversations with sources and with medical experts and a great deal of work has been done over this since the murder, he was probably murdered by a combination of an injection, not through tablets, but an intravenous injection of Dextropropoxythene and paracetamol, the constituents of Co-Proxamol, and a muscle relaxant called Succinylcholine. Now Succinylcholine is a favourite method of assassinating people, it’s used by intelligence agencies, particularly the French DGSE. Succinylcholine, although it’s used therapeutically for treating [inaudible] incubation and so on, can be lethal and in combination with the constituents of Co-Proxamol, 30 milligrammes would probably have been a lethal dose. The problem for someone investigating an assassination by Succinylcholine is that it metabolises even after death and you only pick up the metabolites. In other words it’s one of those drugs that leaves no trace unless you have a very expert pathologist who really knows what he or she is doing.

AJ: Yeah all you can find is what it metabolises into. You cannot find the original chemical.

MS: Exactly. So you have to look for the enzymes it metabolises into. You won’t find any trace of the original drug. [inaudible]

AJ: Well it’s like with AIDS, you look for the antibodies ‘cos you can’t find the virus.

MS: Well, very effectively, yeah. It’s fairly clear that the slash to the wrist was done to disguise the puncture wound. There’s no puncture wound, but of course the slash to the wrist would’ve disguised it. Now the palm or face of the wrist, effectively the inside face of the wrist, is a very popular method, you know anaesthesiologists would use it to inject. It’s quite realistic to suppose that David Kelly was injected in the wrist with the muscle relaxant and the Dextropropoxythene and the

AJ: Tell you what, we’ve got a break again. We’ll come back and get into your source and take some calls.

[Commercial Break]

AJ: Folks, this is very very important, because Tony Blair is a minion of the globalists. He’s the tool who’s trying to destroy British national sovereignty, to bring the British people under the dominance of the un-elected unaccountable European Union whether they like it or not. He’s been promised the EU head-ship under a new expanded, empowered EU, if he can get Britain into it. He lied about the weapons of mass destruction. It’s clear that if Tony Blair was to have been exposed, that would certainly hurt those in Europe that want to get rid of British sovereignty.

And talking to Michael Shrimpton, our guest, our intelligence expert who has his sources over there in England. Talking to you earlier before the show, you talked about your sources, the evidence you have that it looks like that it was elements of British intelligence or of the government using French intelligence to go and do their dirty work which, by the way, is a standard operation if intelligence agencies are getting rid of some of their own people, they will generally use a sister agency in a sister country. I know this is very delicate, Michael, but can you go over what you talked to me off-air about?

MS: Yes Alex. Firstly I should make it clear that I have absolutely no negation that anybody in either of the British intelligence agencies, MI5, the Security Service, or MI6, The Secret Intelligence Service, being involved. On the contrary, my sources are telling me that both services are extremely unhappy. Now the indications are, now you understand I’m being cautious on air, but there indications pointing towards an involvement by the French external intelligence agency the DGSE or Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure.

AJ: But obviously they’ve got a liaison within the government, the British government. They’ve gotta have someone authorising this, or are you saying it’s just a rogue element wanting to get rid of somebody who could mess up the EU?

MS: No, again I’ve got to be obviously careful on air, but the indications are that the tasking for the assassination came from within the UK, but I can’t name any individual official or minister. The tasking was generated in the UK, went to Paris, was then OK’d in Paris, and on the information available to me, the operational agency for the assassination was DGSE. Now there are also indications, and I’m again, obviously Alex you appreciate I’m expressing myself with caution here, there are indications that DGSE, in order to false-flag the assassination, should their team be discovered, used Iraqi intelligence assets from the Iraqi Mukhabarat agency that were available in Damascus after the fall of Baghdad. And I have one source suggesting that an Iraqi team, that’s to say an ex-Mukhabarat team, recruited in Damascus with the assistance of the Syrian intelligence operation, also the Mukhabarat, were flown into Corsica in the seven days prior to the assassination of David Kelly. Now the standard French practice when they carry out assassinations is to take their own team out. I am very doubtful that any of the people involved directly in the assassination of David Kelly are still alive. It would be highly unusual for the French to permit anyone involved in the assassination for them to survive.

AJ: Well we’ve seen this in the past. You’ve had the big controversy the BBC’s reported on about British intelligence using Al-Qaeda individuals to try to kill Muammar Gaddaffi. I mean this is a classic deal. Of course the Iraqis were allies during the eighties and so a lot of these guys were trained in the US, trained in England, trained in France, and then bringing these assets back in.

MS: Yeah, that was a mess [laughs]. That was, er, we could spend another hour on that, Alex. Whoever authorised that operation did not know what they were doing. That was just a total shambles.

AJ: Well, I mean wouldn’t these Iraqis know that they were doing this hit, that they were going to be in deep trouble afterwards, or were they told `You don’t have a choice’?

MS: Not necessarily. They may not have worked for French intelligence before. If you’re offered a job by French intelligence I would turn it down.

AJ: [Laughs]

MS: Anybody approached by French intelligence to do a hit, I would strongly advise them to turn it down or even increase their life insurance. They were probably, I mean assuming it was Iraqis and I can’t be positive; there are indications pointing towards an Iraqi involvement, I can’t be positive about DGSE. I have a range of sources as you’ve said, and those sources point to Paris and they point towards DGSE. [Inaudible]

AJ: Now DGSE is the equivalent of an MI6, it’s outward.

MS: Exactly.

AJ: DGSU is internal?

MS: It’s the DST, Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire, which is the internal agency. And the DST are internal, the DGSE are external. Let’s just put it this way, Alex, the operation has all the hallmarks of DGSE. British intelligence, or my sources, are furious, they’re not happy at all because David, after all, was a British intelligence asset.

AJ: Well by the way, my webmaster, Paul Watson, has talked to a major British news reporter who has talked directly to British intelligence, and they said months ago – I’m talking six months ago – the same thing that you just said here.

MS: Well that is interesting because that would be almost certainly a different source to mine. It might be we’re talking to the same people. One of the problems in the intelligence world is `loop-back’, something you think is independent confirmation, may [chuckles] may turn out to be..

AJ: No, I understand. But I mean clearly from the circumstantial, from the material evidence you’ve got murder, you’ve got a cover-up, you’ve got a spin, you’ve got a motive –

MS: Exactly.

AJ: - You’ve got him telling the US doctor, his colleague, `If I don’t shut up I’m gonna be found dead in the woods. They’re gonna kill me.’ I mean this is all public now, we have him saying `They’re gonna kill me and put me in the woods.’ You said that you’ve talked to intelligence people who’ve said `Yeah, they knew Kelly was about to get it, before he even died. Can you elaborate on that?

MS: Yeah, the source that spoke to me on the 19th July, after the assassination, you see this source was a friend of David Kelly’s, so David was a friend of a friend. This source obviously is not very happy. It didn’t take him five minutes to work out that this was murder, not suicide. He then made enquiries and he established from other sources that the murder was known about in advance, i.e. the murder of David Kelly was known about within a section of Whitehall, prior to the 17th July, and he was very unhappy. That source came through to me and effectively I’m acting as an interface between the media and the intelligence community. It is not possible for the intelligence community to do what I’m doing now and go on to a radio show and broadcast it around the world.

AJ: Well you have an impeccable record and you’ve been involved in a lot of high profile cases. You’ve testified before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for our Senate here and you write for major intelligence journals. You’ve certainly impressed me, Mr Shrimpton, because I study this stuff continually and you’re just massively knowledgeable, more knowledgeable in many areas than I am.

MS: If I could just say, I should correct, I didn’t testify before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the briefing I gave was a closed briefing entirely.

AJ: That’s what I meant.

MS: The Senators on the Committee, I had the privilege of meeting Senator Graham when he was chairman, just briefly, Senator Graham might not even recall the meeting. We met briefly when I happened to be in Congress on another matter. A very nice man.

AJ: Well just to be clear, sir, I know when you guys testify it’s always public-

MS: (Yeah / Cough ?)

AJ: - here, most of what they do, obviously you know, is behind doors, that’s what I meant.

MS: Exactly, yeah. This is a, with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I was invited in to their operation - they’re very nice people – and this was a confidential briefing on a case in which I’d been involved, which obviously I can’t discuss on the air as a courtesy to the guys and girls I briefed in. Very nice people.

AJ: Absolutely. Now I was just going over some of your bio for folks. Now, as we sit here looking at this, for those who don’t understand why an element inside England would want to use someone outside England, who would then use another membrane between them and the hit-men, that’s just standard operating procedure. But why would the French be happy to go along with getting rid of Kelly?

MS: Well, it would depend on the French assessment of whether or not the government would be at risk. The French would definitely want Tony Blair, Tony Blair’s government to remain in office. They would be very concerned indeed at any suggestion that might risk the government. There’s a very strong geo-political motive for the French retaining their ally. Don’t forget that the Blair government is a close ally of President Chirac. There have been a series of private meetings between Prime Minister Blair and President Chirac since the [inaudible]

AJ: And they’re pushing the Euro, so they believe that if Blair is in danger, the Euro’s in danger.

MS: Well, exactly. Tony Blair is the most high profile politician in the UK committed to destroying the national currency. And the French very much want Blair to remain in office for geo-political reasons. We’ve just had a very unusual summit between Blair, Chirac and the German Chancellor Schroeder. I have to be very cautious, I’m not naming Tony Blair as the person who generated the tasking for the assassination. Indeed, I am quite comfortable that it wasn’t Tony Blair who put the tasking into Paris. Now, question marks: What did he know and when did he know it? There I can’t be so confident.

AJ: Well obviously Tony Blair’s a puppet. I mean he’s not running the entire mechanism of the government, so-

MS: He’s a puppet. He’s a puppet Prime Minister anyway. He’s committed to the European Union. I mean he takes his orders, like anyone says we should be in the European Union, you take your orders from Brussels, because that’s what government from Brussels involves.

AJ: Exactly, so –

MS: That’s the constitutional position. You know European Community law is supreme, according to the European Union, and it takes precedence over British law.

AJ: Yeah your Magna Carta’s gone if that sucker passes.

MS: [Chuckles] It does, these days, Alex. But that’s a broader issue. You’re right incidentally on the false flagging. I’m often called upon formally or informally – usually informally – to deconstruct assassinations, to look at a particular assassination and try and work out what’s happened. Basically, in counter-intelligence work we would normally recognise eight methods of trying to disguise an assassination.

First method is you would try and blame it on your opponents. That was done in Sweden recently with the assassination of Anna Lindh, the very nice Swedish Foreign Minister. An attempt was made to blame that on opponents of Sweden joining the Euro.

You can blame it on a terrorist organisation. That was done particularly with the IRA and the attempted assassination of Margaret Thatcher; the assassination of the war hero, Airey Neave, a Conservative MP, was blamed on the Irish National Liberation Army. The terrorist organisation might carry out the assassination, but in almost every case the terrorist organisation is working for a government.

Third method of disguising assassinations, Alex, in my experience is to false-flag them, where it’s blamed on another agency. Now there are elements of false-flagging in the Kelly assassination, because had the team which carried out the assassination been discovered, clearly it could have been false-flagged via Baghdad, and you know, we’d have heard about three Iraqis in Oxfordshire, if assuming it was Iraqis for the sake of argument, the blame would then go to Baghdad and Paris would be let off the hook. The Iranians tried that quite successfully with the attempted assassination of the Pope, back in the early 1980’s.

Then you have the lone-gunman theory. Now you guys are very familiar with that, because you’ll recall that somebody tried to blame Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy-

AJ: Ha ha. Yeah.

MS: - an amusing suggestion to those of us know a little bit more about that assassination than is in the public domain. We’ve had a lone-gunman, a classic example of a lone-gunman assassination theory in Europe with the assassination of the Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn, which was blamed on a lone-gunman. An explanation which doesn’t carry much weight with me since in the photographs of the assassin that I saw, there was what appeared to me to be a very thin wire leading up to an ear-piece. Normally, Alex, lone-gunmen don’t run around with radios and ear-pieces, particularly high-tech ones with-

AJ: Well it was the same thing with Yitzhak Rabin.

MS: Yeah.

AJ: I’m mean Netanyahu’s giving speeches about `Somebody ought to get rid of this guy’, and then Rabin’s security steps back and they blow him away, I mean –

MS: Well certainly respected commentators, Gerald [Gordon] Thomas is one who would say that the Rabin assassination definitely not down to a lone-gunman.

Then you’ve got illness. Now this is fairly rare. It’s difficult to fake an illness. It was done in the case of a British politician, Hugh Gaitskill, who was opposed to Britain joining the European Economic Community, and he came down with a tropical disease in Moscow in the middle of winter. Generally speaking you-

AJ: [Laughs]

MS: [Laughs] It was spotted at the time as an assassination, but MI5, although they’d brought in Porton Down, where David Kelly worked incidentally, Porton Down were brought in but Porton Down couldn’t work out how the disease which got Hugh Gaitskill, which is Lupus Disseminata, a very nasty disease indeed - attacks the organs, very similar to Ebola – how this tropical disease had found its way to Moscow, and they couldn’t work out how, what the agent was for getting the Lupus into Hugh Gaitskill. We now know it was probably aerosol, but at the time that technology wasn’t known about in England.

Then you’ve got accident and we’ve, there are a couple of interesting political assassinations in Zimbabwe, of road accidents which I would put a question mark against. It’s less common to try and stage accidents, but it’s not unknown. A friend of mine was nearly taken out in Argentina a few years ago in what looked to me to be a slightly dubious accident.

AJ: Well what about Princess Diana? She says `Prince Charles is gonna kill me in a staged automobile accident’ and then she dies.

MS: Well the Diana assassination is certainly, probably the classic recent example of trying to make it look like an accident. Yes.

AJ: We’ve been having all these microbiologists in government weapons programmes, will be in a, walking down the street of the university, and a van jumps the rail, chases them, runs them over then backs back over them, drives back over them, and the police just go `An accident, a hit and run.’

MS: [Laughs] Well if you want the truth of the Diana assassination, the best people to talk to are the Israelis, because they had Danny Yatom, who’s a lovely guy by the way, who was then head of Mossad in ’97, who are really nice people, Danny had teams, I think, on the entrance to the Alma Tunnel and on the exit as well. Interesting man. Lovely chap.

AJ: Tunnels where?

MS: This is the Alma Tunnel where Diana where Diana was taken out.

AJ: Oh, yes. Yes.

MS: The seventh method of disguising assassinations in my experience is to try and use a naturally occurring poison. A favourite of intelligence agencies is Saxitoxin, which occurs in shellfish so it’s possible, providing you can get some shellfish into the stomach of the victim, Saxitoxin assassination providing you’ve successfully disguised the puncture wound, or you can find a method of getting the poison into the body. You know, you can get away with that if you’re lucky.

And then the final method is the one tried in the case of David Kelly, that you try and make the murder look like suicide. But it’s very difficult. In this case the attempt to slash the wrist was pointless, because he was already dead. And there’s not enough blood. None of the witnesses, in my judgement, reports enough blood consistent with him bleeding out and the medical experts we’ve talked to, and I’ve been insisting on this, the medical experts generally reckon that for this, you’d be looking for five pints, that’s English pints of blood. There’s nothing I’ve seen that persuades me that more than a pint was lost and that’s about consistent with what you’d expect from transecting one ulnar artery. Completely transecting it, it then retracts, clots, and you don’t get, you get surprisingly little bleeding from cutting your ulnar artery. [inaudible]

AJ: Well, sir, can we keep you a little bit into the next hour, because I want to come back and go to Pat and Jim and Lenny and others that have been patiently holding?

MS: I’d be delighted to talk to you. I didn’t realise, I’m sorry I’ve been talking on and I’ve been keeping people on the phone. I apologise to them and I look forward to talking to them.

AJ: Oh no, this is important information because this shows the type of things that are going on in our world and how the media tries to spin this, but why do you think the media have been so willing to go along with the official government story that it’s a suicide?

MS: Well, the political consequences, the mainstream media in the UK are largely committed to UK membership of the European Union, and my guess is that most of the newspapers in the UK would be worried about the political consequences of going public with any story suggesting David Kelly was assassinated. And then you’ve got technical competence, there aren’t that many good investigative journalists in the UK. It’s not that difficult to get the mainstream media to buy an official version of events.

AJ: Yeah, it’s easy. Just [inaudible] the Fed says this, just write it and go drink a beer.

[Commercial Break]

AJ: Okay folks. We’re back live here. And we’re about to go to your calls, everybody’s been holding patiently for our guest. Going back to our guest, Michael Shrimpton, national security lawyer, barrister in England. Michael?

MS: Yeah.

AJ: Continuing with what we were discussing and just briefly recapping, you have a source who, in intelligence, talked to his other sources and it was widely known in intelligence that there was an order to get rid of Kelly, even before he died.

MS: My source learned after the assassination that others in Whitehall were aware of the assassination in advance, yes. And that source had spoken to, obviously he was a friend of David Kelly’s, knew him well, had worked with him, and clearly once his friend was found dead in a wood, made investigations and when he made investigations he discovered that this assassination was known about in advance. Yes.

AJ: And he told, and this is in the Associated Press, BBC, you name it, he told an American doctor who was on the team with him in Iraq, he said `If I don’t shut up about this, I’m gonna end up dead in the woods.’

MS: Yeah. There was also an interesting conversation with David Broucher who was formerly British Ambassador in Prague in the Czech Republic, along similar lines. That, David Broucher I think was a witness, in fact, to the Hutton Inquiry. David Kelly worked, I never had the privilege of meeting him, I would have loved to have met him, my friend certainly worked with him and knew him. David worked very closely with the United States intelligence and worked very closely with Sergeant Mai Pederson in particular, but I get the impression he was very highly thought of in the US intelligence community as well.

AJ: Was this done by the pro-EU crowd? The globalists, I would call them? To put out a chilling effect into everybody in intelligence to keep your mouths shut?

MS: Broadly speaking, yes. Now motive is another question altogether. It’s tolerably clear, one can’t be certain, tolerably clear that he was taken out in order to prevent him talking. Now what is unclear is whether he was taken out because there was concern he was about to acquire intelligence that might be highly damaging, or taken out because he had acquired it and was about to talk to the media. We know there was concern about the extent of his media contacts, I mean –

AJ: He was also a microbiologist -

MS: Correct.

AJ: - and there’s been a whole bunch of those dying around the world. Let’s take a call. Pat in Indiana, thanks for holding. You’re on the air with our guest, go ahead.

Pat: Yes, this is a little off the subject, but it has to do with –

AJ: Ma’am, you don’t have your radio on, do you? Or a speakerphone or something? Cos I’m not gonna be able to talk to you if you don’t turn it off.

Pat: He did.

AJ: Okay go ahead.

Pat: Okay, it’s about a couple of subjects I want to air

AJ: I’m gonna have to go ahead and put her on hold. I’m sorry Ma’am, but something’s wrong with your phone or you got your radio on. Let’s try to bring her back up one more time and then I’ll have to let her go. Pat, go ahead.

Pat: This is on a couple of – I don’t know what’s wrong because we turned our radio off.

AJ: Okay, it’s alright. Go ahead.

Pat: Okay. This is on a couple of subjects, one from Earlham College and one from the Town Hall meeting I had with Mike [inaudible] on Friday.

AJ: Ma’am, is this concerning our guest.

Pat: No.

AJ: Because you told us that you wanted to talk to our guest. I’m gonna have to put you on hold.

MS: Nice to talk to you anyway, Pat.

AJ: Yeah, nice to talk to you. You know we’re about to break and start the next hour and then we’ll sort out what’s going on with the calls and we’ll get to ‘em. Lets um, I know there’s a whole bunch of calls here for you, we’ll try to sort ‘em out and find out what’s going on as we talk to our guest, Michael Shrimpton, a national intelligence barrister in England. I bet you see all kinds of just amazing stuff in your job.

MS: I do, yes [laughs]. Not all that I can talk about on the air. And I meet some interesting people. And I had a very interesting visit to Israel in the middle of last year, looking at the new security fence being built.

AJ: Alright, well, I hear the music, so that means we’ve got to go ahead and break. And when we get back and start the third hour we’ll go straight to your calls, folks. You wanna talk to our guest, it’s 1-800 259 9231. 1-800 259 9231.

[Commercial Break]

AJ: Alright, my friends. Now into the third hour. We’re talking to Michael Shrimpton, national security barrister in England with his intelligence sources concerning the murder of Dr David Kelly. And British people are very suspicious as are many other folks around the world. And more and more is coming out. Let’s go ahead and go to Jim in Illinois. Jim, thanks for holding, you’re on the air with our guest. Go ahead.

Jim: I have two quick questions. Mr Shrimpton, what is David Kelly’s wife saying about his murder?

MS: Janice Kelly – hi Jim – Janice Kelly accepts that it was suicide, at least that’s her official position.

Jim: Next question. Why didn’t the British, or the American or the Israeli intelligence assassinate Saddam Hussein before the war?

MS: Well that’s a big question, probably better directed to intelligence officials. Assassination is very - I’m opposed to assassinations in principle, one of the reasons why I’m outraged by David Kelly’s assassination – assassination is a double-edged sword and I think had we gone in and taken out Saddam Hussein, that would have rebounded on both Britain and America very quickly. So I think the call not to assassinate him was probably well made. It’s also more difficult to assassinate politicians like Saddam Hussein than first appears. You remember the CIA’s farcical efforts to try to get rid of Fidel Castro.

Jim: Right.

MS: They had a go for several years and they didn’t get anywhere close to assassinating him with exploding cigars and what-have-you. I would say the call not to take Saddam Hussein out was right. The danger with assassinating somebody like Saddam Hussein, you build up inside Iraq popular support for his regime –

AJ: Yeah, you turn him into a martyr and also it’ll cause a revolution even before you get there and you won’t control, kind of, the way the balls break. Thanks for the call. That’s a really good question. Anything else Jim?

Jim: No thankyou.

MS: Great to talk to you, Jim.

AJ: I’ve got a question.

MS: Great state, Illinois. Been there.

AJ: [Chuckles] I’ve got a question for you, Michael. Where is all this going as more and more doctors and people come forward, and as you come forward and say it’s clear that he was murdered. I mean where does all this go for Tony Blair?

MS: Well there are indications that he may be preparing to resign. He’s denied officially over the weekend that he’s been planning to resign, which is an indication that he is. Never believe anything until it’s officially denied. A number of key advisors have bailed out. Alastair Campbell, another key advisor, Philip Gould, has just been offered a peerage, which is a form of retirement we have in England that you don’t have in the United States –

AJ: Michael Meacher, months ago.

MS: Michael Meacher, yes. There are now calls, Michael Meacher’s just issued a call, he’s former government – nice chap – former government minister. Michael has issued a call over the last weekend, calling on him to go. There are indications that he is on his way out, but you know, it’s up to him. Or up to his party.

AJ: Well that would certainly be good. I mean have you ever had a Prime Minister this bad?

MS: Well, that’s a political question. The answer is `probably’, but I can’t remember when. It’s a close toss-up between Tony Blair, John Major and Lord North who lost the American colonies, but from your point of view Lord North was probably quite good to have in Downing Street.

AJ: [Laughs] That’s funny.

MS: Neville Chamberlain. I think that, without being disrespectful to my Prime Minister on the air, I think it’s a close call between Tony Blair and Neville Chamberlain.

AJ: [Laughs]

MS: You have to, you know, you have to, you could have ten different politicians and economists and military strategists sit around a table and come up with ten different answers as to whether Neville Chamberlain surrendered more of Europe than Tony Blair, and whether Tony Blair surrendered more to France and Germany than Neville Chamberlain did. It’s a close run thing.

AJ: Well I think it’s clearly Tony Blair if he gets what he wants.

MS: Yes, I had the, I have to say having met Tony Blair, he’s not, he’s quite a pleasant, personable individual. He’s not a monster when you meet him.

AJ: Well they said that about Adolf Hitler too. Y’know we’ve got a break. We’ll come right back and we’ll go to Lenny Bloom who’s been on this story, and we’ll also talk to David in Texas and a few other callers for our guest, and then we’ll get to Bob and Ron and others, and a bunch of other key news items. Stay with us.

[Commercial Break]

AJ: Just an absolutely amazing and riveting interview over the last hour and eight minutes with our guest - national security barrister, lawyer, who has consulted with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence here in the US, and given speeches, and consulted around the world, and writes for major terrorism journals - going over well, just a lot of interesting facts for us. Like usually if you’ve got some type of terrorist assassination, terrorists killing people, there’s usually a government behind them using them as a go-between. Oh we’ve discovered that here in our research too. And going over the evidence of how Dr David Kelly was killed, and the elements inside governments that did it and why. Lets take a few calls. We’ll go to David and Ian and a few others here in a few minutes, but right now lets go to Lenny Bloom who’s been a guest on this show before and has a website []. I know last week they got some rumblings of this story and put it out. Lenny, what’s on your mind?

Lenny: Well welcome, thanks for having me back, Alex, you’re doing a tremendous yeoman’s service job. You know the pilots who fly these assassination teams around the world don’t have a public responsibility to tell the media, tell the truth, tell people. But the media has a core responsibility. Y’know these things, there’s so many people involved that I’ve known and been a part of as a spy-pilot over the years. This thing with Dr Kelly is something that’s interesting, ever since the Duke of Edinburgh said he wanted to become a deadly virus and come back and be reincarnated we have kept a biochemical doctors death-list, for good reason. The Duke doesn’t want to be suspected or blamed for his actions. It’s really interesting and clear what’s going on here, it’s right in front of everybody’s nose.

AJ: Okay Lenny, do you have any questions or comments for our guest?

Lenny: Yeah, I just want to say thanks for coming out, I think that’s great that you’re starting to dig into the whole thing. I think Kelly was number fifty on the death-list, and I think that’s wonderful.

AJ: Lenny, let me ask our guest that. Are you familiar, sir, that there’s been all over the western world, Australia, Russia, western Europe, England, the US, top bio-weapons scientists being murdered and that Kelly just so happened to be one more on that list?

MS: Well I’m aware of an unusually high percentage of microbiologists going south and it’s – put it this way, it’s attracted my interest. I think David Kelly wasn’t taken out as part of a systematic campaign to take out WMD scientists.

Lenny: I didn’t say that. He’s part of a death-list though and there may be different reason for it.

MS: Hi Lenny, good to hear from you. You mentioned you were a spy pilot. What planes were you flying?

Lenny: Well I’m rather grounded right now!

MS: What did you used to fly?

Lenny: I flew everything from F18’s to F14’s to Cessna 172’s to Bell 206’s and my student became Air Force One helicopter for ten years. He’s a three star general.

MS: I wish I could introduce you to a client of mine who once flew an aeroplane called the Lockheed U-2A over the Soviet Union with a guy called Gary Powers.

AJ: Wow.

MS: Yeah.

AJ: Well thanks for the call, Lenny. I appreciate that. And thanks for all your work.

MS: Great to talk to you, Lenny.

AJ: Yeah, let’s talk to David in Texas. David, you’re on the air. Go ahead.

David: Hello sir?

AJ: Yes, go ahead.

MS: Hi David.

David: Hi, thank you for taking my call. I have a quick question on the media. I know that you’re involved in intelligence, but like in our country we don’t see a lot of programming on Tel-Aviv and Palestinian television, and I know they present a very, you know er, I don’t know er, ethical code of fatwa and things of that such, and we don’t [inaudible] a lot of that, and I’m curious [inaudible]

AJ: Okay, I’m trying to understand exactly what you’re saying. Boil it down for us.

David: Well, the promotion of dying for Allah is a shown thing on TV in Tel-Aviv and the media doesn’t really focus on that here in the United States. I’m wondering what your view is on that and do you see that in Europe?

MS: Well –

David: I’ll go ahead and listen. Thank you.

MS: Okay David. Well always a pleasure to talk to somebody from – whereabouts in Texas are you from?

AJ: I believe he’s gone.

MS: Oh he’s gone. Well let me answer his question as a courtesy to him. I’m not very impressed of media coverage of the middle-east generally. I do subscribe to a very interesting service called MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, and some of the stuff they come up with on what is broadcast on mainstream media in Egypt and Saudi Arabia concerning Israel is just shocking. It’s like the 1930’s all over again. Very, very disturbing stuff. So I’m not very impressed with mainstream coverage of the middle-east, and that was partly why I went to the middle-east in June, a little fact-finding tour. [Inaudible]

AJ: You were there with the IDF on the ground, what did you learn?

MS: Well I was very impressed with the way the IDF ran check-points. I talked to a check-point commander in Jenin, for example, very impressed with what I saw; very impressed with the security fence which is clearly having an impact in those sectors of the West Bank where it’s been erected.[Inaudible]

AJ: Well I know this. We sure need one of those on the southern border of the US.

MS: [Laughs]

AJ: And I want one. That thing’s beautiful.

MS: Well I think your southern border is a bit porous and as we’ve seen on 9/11, porous borders can present dangers. And er –

AJ: Well I’m not kidding, I’ve literally seen photos of that thing and I start salivating on it.

MS: Yeah.

AJ: Because just the raping and killing and robbery and Mexican troops and killing federal officers, and our news doesn’t even report on it. I mean it is bedlam on our southern border.

MS: Your southern border is not particularly well protected, with every respect to the guys and girls who are down there protecting it. But, no, they need more resources and er –

AJ: But back to the IDF, I’m sorry for interrupting.

MS: Well I’m a big fan of the IDF. I was very impressed meeting and talking with erm, from soldiers up to generals. I think the IDF are doing a good job. I think the Israelis know far more about counter-terrorism than we do in Britain or in the United States. My general line with Israel is I think, we in the west, the rest of the west – Israel is part of the west – we need to get off the Israelis’ back and let them go and do the job. They do know what they’re doing.

AJ: Well certainly they know how to build a fence and I wish we had one of those.

Ms: [Laughs] The fence is very impressive. It’s more than a fence of course, it’s a, you’ve got a ditch, you’ve got a roadway that allows regular patrolling, easy access to any terrorist incursion, good surveillance, some good, high-tech stuff there. The security barrier is a very impressive development.

AJ: Yeah. Let’s go ahead and now and, who’s up next in line here, Stephanie? Ian in Canada, you’re on the air with our guest. Go ahead.

Ian: Thanks Alex. I wanted to ask your guest, I wanted to explore the occultic implications of David Kelly’s death and by illustration I want to refer to a case that he may be familiar with – Air Marshall Sir Peter Horsley - they tried to take him out like Diana, with rigged brakes on his BMW in the mid-80’s, just between Amesbury Circle and Stonehenge, about 660 yards, if you can believe it, into his drive west along the motorway. There was that occultic association and what I’m wondering is because David Kelly, you reported, probably died on July 17th which is right in the middle of that high holiday they celebrate at Bohemian Grove, Alex. That was the date that –

AJ: I’ll tell you what, let me bring this up to him. I don’t know if he’s aware of it but Skull and Bones, admittedly a weird, occult organisation; Bohemian Grove, I snuck into it, that was on national British television, the footage I shot a few years ago. It’s also aired here. In some of these killings, they do seem to do it in a ritualistic fashion; that was brought up with Princess Diana. Do you want to get into that or is that too…?

MS: No. I don’t see, with respect to you in Canada - I don’t know where abouts in Canada you are, but it’s a great country – I don’t see any occult relationship with the Kelly assassination at all. I’m not familiar with, I don’t know Sir Peter Horsley and I’m not familiar with that. Was that an attempted assassination?

Ian: He claims that he was being used to take somebody else out, but they rigged his BMW and I believe he was –

AJ: See here’s the problem. We can’t solve this other stuff in that we can’t prove, Ian. Then when the news goes and listens to this interview it’s, you know, discussions of you know, things we can’t prove. That’s the problem.

Ian: Well Alex, if the guest wants to explore this, the book that Sir Peter wrote is `Voices From Another Room’ and he’d find it in the UK.

AJ: Okay. Well thank you for that. I really appreciate it.

MS: I know plenty of air marshalls, I’m sure I can find an air marshall who knows or knew Sir Peter.

AJ: Alright. And I guess up next is Wayne. Wayne, where are you calling us from? Okay, Wayne is gone. Let’s go ahead and go to Bob in California. Bob go ahead. You’re on the air Bob.

Bob: I’m kinda sorry I’m not on topic today. I wanted to call you about the Diebold machines that our county is using on us for touch-tone voting.

AJ: Y’know what, I’m gonna put you on hold and we’ll get to you coming up in the next segment. I wanna –

MS: Good morning Bob. That’s an interesting subject but not one on which I could give any qualified comment.

AJ: [Laughs] Well we’ve got so many callers here it’s hard to figure out who’s calling in on subject. It would be nice if they did call in on subject.

MS: You’re a popular guy, Alex, and I can understand having listened to your show why you’ve got a lot of feedback.

AJ: Ah, well it’s great. A lot of great people out there. We’ve obviously got to have you back on because you’re a very intelligent, very informative person because there’s not many people I get on the show who end up knowing more about intelligence matters, because I study it, pretty much perpetually. You’ve brought out some very important information and I really want to thank you for coming on the show Mr Shrimpton.

MS: Alex, it’s been my pleasure and a privilege.

AJ: And for those that just joined us, again, Michael Shrimpton, a national intelligence lawyer or barrister in England, and he writes for major intelligence journals and has consulted around the world on intelligence matters and he was coming on, exposing the murder of Dr David Kelly. Do you think those that were responsible will ever be brought to justice sir?

MS: I don’t think they will. I think those immediately responsible are already dead. My guess is they were taken out within 24-48 hours of the assassination. I suspect those involved in tasking the assassination will be dealt with informally and will be given valuable guidance and the public will not get to know about it, and my guess is that the coroner, Nick Gardiner, who has jurisdiction to hold an inquest will not hold an inquest. That means no jury will ever enquire into the reasons for David Kelly dying.

AJ: Alright. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We’ll be back folks.



Free Newsletter

Email Address:

Join the Educate-Yourself Discussion Forum

All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.