Previous page | Contents | Next page
4.2  |  Iraq WMD assessments, July to September 2002
in a two-week period at the time the 9 September Assessment was being
prepared and discussed.”135
282.  Sir John stated that:
the source who had produced “the 45-minute report as well”, was “an
established and reliable reporting [source], but reporting from a line of …
named sub-sources”; and
that source “was quoting his knowledge” and had been “speaking in very definite
terms about their continued possession [of chemical and biological weapons]”.136
283.  The “45 Minute” report “quoting the sub-sources on the intention to use [CBW]”
was withdrawn on 28 September 2004 (see Section 4.3).137 Sir John said he had known
“in about May 2004” that there was “a big question mark about that report”.
284.  In relation to the production of biological agent, Sir John Scarlett stated that a
report in early September:
“… from an established and reliable source … referred to a … fermentation system,
which … was judged to be very likely to be a reference to the same general
capability and the same focus on mobile production capabilities, and that was
referred to in assessments after that as corroboration for the mobile reporting.
“So a lot of weight was placed upon the reporting […] from that source.”138
285.  Sir John stated that the reporting on mobile production facilities was withdrawn
on 29 September 2004.139
286.  Mr Miller told the Inquiry:
“… we were the recipients of the intelligence on the basis described and we gave
weight to those descriptions, but we didn’t try to get underneath the surface of what
had led to a conclusion particularly about the reliability of any particular stream.”140
287.  Asked how much the JIC had known about the sources, Mr Miller added:
“Generally not a great deal. From time to time, when there was a particular source
which the agencies attached great weight to, there was some briefing given on why
they were attaching particular weight to a source. But it was all at a fairly high level
of generality, and there was, for the bulk of the reporting, nothing more than the
descriptors on the individual reports.”
135  Private hearing, 5 June 2010, page 13.
136  Private hearing, 5 June 2010, page 20.
137  Private hearing, 5 June 2010, page 21.
138  Private hearing, 5 June 2010, page 18.
139  Private hearing, 5 June 2010, page 21.
140  Private hearing, 5 June 2010, page 30.
167
Previous page | Contents | Next page