How a whispering voice and hunched body betrayed Kelly's tension

David Kelly's discomfort was plain to see for the journalists, observers and members of the public crammed into Committee Room 15 of the House of Commons.

His voice barely rose above a whisper as the Foreign Affairs Select Committee grilled him for more than an hour over whether he was the source of Andrew Gilligan's report that the Government had "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

His answers were so soft that MPs repeatedly asked him to speak up. Dr Kelly told one: "I apologise. I have a soft voice, I know."

Reporters sitting just feet away from him had to lean forward, cupping their ears to hear. Even so, they missed whole chunks of his testimony.

In the end, and despite the stifling heat, officials had to turn off the fans, whose low whirr was drowning him out.

As he was questioned intensely on the extent of his contact with journalists, the former United Nations weapons inspector's body language also betrayed his tension.

Dr Kelly, sitting alone at a table before committee members ranged in a horseshoe shape, was hunched forward, his hands clasped before him.

Despite the inquisitorial setting of the committee room and the abrupt manner of the questioning, its tone was broadly sympathetic as MPs quickly satisfied themselves that he was not the source of the Gilligan story.

Sir John Stanley, a former Conservative defence minister, told him: "If I may say so, I think you have behaved in a very honourable and proper manner by going to your departmental line managers in the circumstances you describe." However, many of the MPs' comments - perhaps reflecting a fondness among members for playing to the gallery - must have wounded him.

The Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay said that he had been set up by the Ministry of Defence as a "fall-guy", used as "chaff" to discredit Mr Gilligan and divert attention from the committee's investigation into the background to war in Iraq. Dr Kelly replied: "That is not a question I can answer."

Mr Mackinlay added: "But you feel that?"

The voice of the weapons expert dropped so low that the Labour chairman, Donald Anderson, insisted that he repeat his answer: "I accept the process that is happening."

As Dr Kelly appeared to sidestep questions on his contacts with journalists, Mr Mackinlay told him curtly: "This is the high court of Parliament and I want you to tell the committee who you met."

Sir John claimed that the scientist had been "thrown to the wolves" by the MoD. Dr Kelly could only reply: "I think that is a line of questioning you will have to ask the Ministry of Defence. I am sorry."

As the session came to an end, Mr Anderson summarised: "When you thought that you might have been the source you wrote a letter volunteering the fact of your meeting. Given what has subsequently happened, do you feel used in any way?"

Dr Kelly replied: "You have already asked that question. I accept the process that I have encountered."

Moments later, he left the room, refusing to comment to journalists as he walked towards the stairs that lead to the public exit of the Commons.

MPs said they believed they had been firm but fair with their witness and pointed out that civil servants routinely appear before them. Dr Kelly had testified to an earlier investigation by the committee.

The difference from the average hearing was the intensity of the political and media spotlight on the unwilling witness - a pressure that would have daunted the most battle-hardened public figure.

One clue of the turmoil he could have been feeling came when he complained: "At the moment I am pursued by the press and I do not have access to my home."

Mr Anderson said yesterday: "It wasn't as if he could be seen as a victim in the corner, or a person against whom a complaint was being made.

"So I don't think the questioning was aggressive against him. I concede of course it was wholly outside his normal experience, therefore it must have certainly been an ordeal."

Tom Mangold, a close friend, said that Dr Kelly's wife, Janice, had told him that the events of the past week had left him in torment. "She told me that he had been under considerable stress, that he was very, very angry about what had happened at the committee, that he wasn't well, that he had been to a safe house, he hadn't liked that, he wanted to come home," Mr Mangold said.

Excerpts from the committee's proceedings

Andrew Mackinlay (Labour): Can you tell me those journalists who you do recall having met in the timescale? What are their names?

Kelly: Having met?

Mackinlay: Yes.

Kelly: I have met very few journalists.

Mackinlay: I heard "few", but who are the ones in your mind's eye at this moment? What are their names?

Kelly: That will be provided to you by the Ministry of Defence.

Mackinlay: No, I am asking you now. This is the high court of Parliament and I want you to tell the committee who you met.

Greg Pope (Labour): I just want to know, in your own opinion, do you believe you were the main source of Mr Gilligan's article on 1 June?

Kelly: My belief is that I am not the main source.

Pope : Do you know who the main source is?

Kelly: No.

Richard Ottaway (Conservative): I do not see how you could have been the primary source. Why did you not complain to the MoD that this was an inaccurate statement that they were making?

Kelly: Because I did realise that in fact I may have inadvertently, if you like, contributed to that.

Ottaway: You reached the conclusion that you were not the source?

Kelly: I do not believe I am the source.

Sir John Stanley (Conservative): Why did you feel it was incumbent upon you to go along with the request that clearly had been made to you to be thrown to the wolves, not only to the media but, also, to this Committee?

Kelly: I think that is a line of questioning you will have to ask the MoD. I am sorry.

Mackinlay: I reckon you are chaff; you have been thrown up to divert our probing. Have you ever felt like a fall guy? You have been set up, have you not?

Kelly: That is not a question I can answer.

Mackinlay: But you feel that?

Kelly: No, not at all. I accept the process that is going on.

Donald Anderson (Labour chairman): What lessons have you learnt?

Kelly: Never to talk to a journalist again, I think.