MEMORIA RESPIRATORIA (XI, A) (RAFAEL ARGULLOL): DAVID KELLY, EL PODER Y LAS ERINIAS
En la tragedia griega deidades espectrales-las Erinias-
perseguían los delitos incrustadas vengativamente en la memoria de los
transgresores, pero fue Shakespeare, posiblemente, el mayor anatomista del
poder que haya dado nuestra cultura, quien colocó a los espectros en el sitial
idóneo
(…)
En apariencia el poder juega con su propia ilusión,
de manera que quienes lo detentan, los poderosos, creen que no hay límites para
sus acciones.Esto naturalmente exige que el tiempo sea siempre un crudo
presente (…) A luz de la pura actualidad el poder sueña con su carácter
ilimitado.
(…)
Los espectros son criaturas del futuro que, de
pronto, intervienen en el presente e interrumpen la ensoñación del poder.
(…)
Nada hay más terrible para el poder que el
testimonio de la memoria que simbolizan los espectros.
(…)
El de Kelly, el espectro de David Kelly, ha puesto
su demoledor foco sobre la vida pública de la Gran Bretaña y, por extensión, de
Occidente.Lo que permanecía oculto en el momento de la acción-aquel presente en
el que el poder se enseñoreaba de la realidad-ahora empieza a desnudarse bajo
la luz de la contemplación.
(…)
Los falsarios son los que siempre invocan el
principio de realidad.Los peores crímenes del siglo XX se realizaron invocando
este principio.Los más recientes crímenes del recién iniciado siglo también. (…)
Los espectros nos defienden contra la pública virtud.
(Rafael Argullol, Los espectros (septiembre de
2003), en Enciclopedia del Crepúsculo)
(LA "HISTORIA" LLEGA SIEMPRE TARDE AL
VERDADERO ESCENARIO DEL PRESENTE DEL PODER Y DE SUS HUELLAS BORRADAS.HAY
INCLUSO QUIEN SOSTIENE QUE LA TRANSPARENCIA PÚBLICA ES INDESEABLE COMO
PRINCIPIO. ¿EN QUÉ PRINCIPIO SE BASAN LAS "DESCLASIFICACIONES" TARDÍAS
DE LA INFORMACIÓN DEL PODER? ¿POR QUÉ LAS GRABACIONES DEL FBI A LUTHER
KING, POR EJEMPLO NO SE HARÁN PÚBLICAS HASTA EL AÑO 2027? A QUIÉN LE
IMPORTARÁ ENTONCES QUE EL POLVO ALLÍ CONTENIDO SEA SACUDIDO?)
(Think you
remember the David Kelly affair? The government arms inspector who killed
himself thirteen years ago after a huge scandal involving Tony Blair’s Labour
government, the war in Iraq and all that ?
I bet you don’t.
SACERDOTES: Los secuestradores
de la palabra
REBELDÍA: El amor a la
verdad prevalece sobre el temor a la verdad
PROFETA: El que adivina el
presente
OFICIO: El espacio
trabajado línea a línea, la tranquila captura de la luz, la roturación del
tiempo
NO: La sílaba que cultiva quien preserva
su libertad
MAL: El espectador absoluto que jamás
bajará a la arena de la vida
GRIETA: Nada es más
inquietante para el poderoso que el que la vida se cuele por las rendijas del
poder
ARISTOCRACIA: Uno es mil si se
atreve a ser uno
(Rafael Argullol, Breviario de la aurora)
Primera vez aquí 12 de julio de 2009
(EL PODER ES HOY MÁS QUE NUNCA EL
ESPECTADOR ABSOLUTO QUE JAMÁS BAJARÁ A LA ARENA DE LA VIDA Y EL DUEÑO
ABSOLUTO DEL PRESENTE EMPEÑADO DE LAS GENERACIONES ACTUALES Y FUTURAS.
"NO HAY FUTURO" ES LA OTRA CARA DE "HAY SOLO PODER".POR ESO ES PROFETA
QUIEN ADIVINA EL PRESENTE Y SUS GRIETAS)
“Un hombre enfrentándose al Juicio Final.
(…)
El conocimiento científico se apoya en una lógica de progreso histórico. Por
eso, justamente, hablamos de avance. El conocimiento poético es un
reconocimiento de lo que ya vive en nosotros. La poesía vuelve una y otra vez
sobre las mismas representaciones.
(…)
Olvido y memoria. Ahora todo depende de que el fiel de la balanza se incline en
una u otra dirección. Es, realmente, el Juicio Final. (…) en realidad, para
cualquiera de nosotros el Juicio Final tiene lugar cada día.”
Primera vez aquí 7 de enero de 2011(EL "JUICIO FINAL" Y EL JUICIO A
SECAS HAN DESAPARECIDO DE LA CONCIENCIA Y DEL INCONSCIENTE
COLECTIVOS.NO HAY INSTANCIA DE APELACIÓN POSIBLE.NO SOLO TODO LO REAL ES
RACIONAL SINO, MÁS IMPORTANTE, TODO LO REAL HA SIDO YA JUZGADO Y
SENTENCIADO POR ANTICIPADO ("ACQUITTED") Y SIN APELACIÓN.EL JUICIO FINAL
NO ERA MERAMENTE POÉTICO.LA "JUSTICIA POÉTICA" ES LA BURLA DEL JUICIO.
SOLO LUGARES DE TINIEBLAS (JÜNGER))
Response to Lord Hutton
by
Drs. Stephen Frost, Christopher Burns-Cox and David Halpin
Dear Sir
Lord Hutton presided over an inquiry which sought to apportion blame
between the BBC and the Government for the “suicide” of Dr David Kelly
when no “verdict” of suicide had been (and still has not been) reached.
His report was widely labelled a “whitewash”, because he was perceived
to apportion that blame unfairly (given the evidence he had heard), all
but exonerating the Government, and placing the blame almost entirely on
the BBC. Now, in his letter published in the Times (3 November 2006),
he seemingly seeks to defend his report by setting out his case re the
minutiae of the “45 minute claim”.
Lord Hutton misses the essential point. What is more, it appears
that he was used by the Government to subvert due process in
establishing precisely how Dr Kelly died.
We and several other medical colleagues (and lawyers) attempted in a
series of six letters published in The Guardian and one in the New
Statesman to inform the public, and the mainstream press, that all
doctors learn at medical school that, in order to return a “verdict” of
“suicide”, a coroner must prove suicide beyond reasonable doubt (a very
high level of proof), including “intent” to commit suicide, also beyond
reasonable doubt. If the Coroner cannot achieve the necessary level of
proof, he is required by law to return an “open verdict”, assuming that
“foul play” has at the outset been excluded in the proper manner.
Unfortunately, there is some doubt as to whether “foul play”
was properly excluded in the case of Dr Kelly.
However, disregarding any such failure in such a high-profile
death, it is important to understand that the public was invited to
believe that Dr Kelly’s death would be better investigated at the Hutton
Inquiry than at a coroner’s inquest, when the exact opposite was the
case.
Lord Hutton possessed none of the powers normally available to the
Coroner. He could not (and did not) hear evidence under oath, he could
not subpoena witnesses, he could not aggressively cross-examine
witnesses, and he could not call a jury. Not enough with that, his
inquiry was an “ad hoc” inquiry, not a public inquiry (as the public and
the press were led to believe) subject to the provisions of the Public
Inquiries Act !921 (itself quietly repealed last year and replaced by
the Inquiries Act 2005). Lord Hutton was invited (and consented) by
Lord Falconer (the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for Constitutional
Affairs) to conduct an inquiry on the very day that Dr Kelly’s body was
allegedly found.
Later, Lord Falconer, used his powers as Lord Chancellor to invoke
Section 17a of the 1988 Coroners’ Act and order the Oxfordshire
Coroner, Mr Nicholas Gardiner, to “adjourn indefinitely” his inquest.
But, Section 17a had become law on 1 January 2000, largely, it is
believed, at the instigation of Lord Falconer. Its purpose was
allegedly to obviate duplication of inquiry following multiple death
scenarios (eg train disasters), when the cause of death could to some
extent be assumed. But, Dr Kelly’s death was a solitary death.
In addition, Lord Hutton’s remit and powers (since it was an “ad hoc”
inquiry) were determined by Lord Falconer. Lord Hutton’s remit was
extremely narrow (and Lord Hutton seemingly sought to narrow it
further), and his powers were very limited, so limited in fact that Lord
Hutton could not prove anything, let alone “suicide”.
After all, Lord Hutton was directed by Lord Falconer to do no more
than “inquire into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David
Kelly”, and it appears that establishing the cause of Dr Kelly’s death
was not viewed as a priority. But, the cause of the death should have
been THE priority in an inquiry which eventually purported to obviate
the need for a full inquest.
Despite all this, the Coroner, Mr Nicholas Gardiner, on 16 March
2004, thought fit to conclude that there was no “exceptional reason” for
him to re-open the Inquest, and even deferred to Lord Falconer by
saying that he (Lord Falconer) was happy with the findings of Lord
Hutton, and then went on to say “and so am I”.
Given the obvious “insuffiency of inquiry” re the cause of Kelly’s
death over which Lord Hutton presided, he (the Coroner) should not have
been sharing in Lord Falconer’s happiness. In addition, the Coroner
was surely extremely unwise to talk to the Mail on Sunday some weeks
before his final hearing in March 2004, saying that he wished to achieve
“closure” at his coming hearing, and hinting at that stage that he
could see no “exceptional reason” to re-open the Inquest.
Apparently, it is unprecedented for judges to discuss publicly their
findings, as Lord Hutton has done, not once, but twice. But, then,
it is unprecedented for the Government to lead the public to believe
that a “verdict” of suicide has been reached, and the Inquest “closed”,
when no such verdict could be reached, and for that reason the Inquest
could not be closed.
Dr David Kelly is the first British citizen to be denied an inquest
in such circumstances. Given the clear “insufficiency of inquiry”,
regarding the cause of death over which Lord Hutton presided, the
Coroner should have re-opened the Inquest.
There are unconfirmed reports that he (the Coroner) now regrets that
he did not do so. It is our view that if the Coroner is not able at
this late stage to reverse his decision, a fresh inquest should be
ordered.
Yours faithfully
C Stephen Frost,
BSc MB ChB Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology (Stockholm, Sweden)
stephen.frost@btinternet.com
Christopher Burns-Cox,
MD FRCP
David Halpin,
FRCS
