They make the claims that the investigation into his death was conducted in too hurried a manner, did not reach a conclusion ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as required by law and followed a flawed process.
The six are, former assistant coroner Dr Michael Powers QC, David Halpin a trauma surgeon, Andrew Rouse expert in Epidemiology, surgeon Martin Birnstingl, Stephen Frost a radiologist, and Chris Burns-Cox internal general medicine specialist.
The initial investigation was conducted by Lord Hutton. He concluded that Dr Kelly died as a result of loss of blood and an overdose of painkillers.
But there was hardly any blood found near his body. According to experts it would take the loss of 5 pints of blood to kill the average man and an artery cut left in the open air would have naturally closed itself with a total loss of about one pint of blood.
It has also been claimed that Dr Kelly took 29 painkillers. Empty packets of the painkiller Coproxamol were found near the body, but once again experts say this would not have been enough to kill him.
Although Dr Kelly had heart disease it is not considered as bad enough to cause his death under these circumstances.
According to reports there were also no fingerprints left on the knife he supposedly used, it had been wiped clean.
There were some mystery men seen in the vicinity at the time, they have never been accounted for.
The couple who found the body say it was leaning up against a tree but when the paramedics later arrived it was lying down.
But most strangely the file for the police investigation (Operation Mason) started at 2:30 pm. That is an hour before Dr Kelly went on his stroll. Maybe a simple typo?
All this leads some to believe that Dr Kelly was actually murdered by persons unknown, possibly the security services.
The six doctors make a very compelling case for another investigation. They have instructed human rights solicitors Leigh Day and Co. to get the matter looked at by the High Court. But first they must approach Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General. If she refuses then they may go for judicial review.
There is enough doubt in the minds of the public and experts to make it necessary for the case to be re-opened and investigated again. In all this of course we must not forget the feelings of the family, who have never publicly commented on this affair.