7 ms·

I used to think the death of David Kelly was suicide. Now I am not sure. If there wasn't something highly dubious going on, why would the government keep it se

I used to think the death of David Kelly was suicide. Now I am not sure. If there wasn't something highly dubious going on, why would the government keep it secret for 70 years?

jacquesm 17y ago
I lost a lot of confidence in governments in general when the French authorities decided to blow up the Greenpeace boat and ended up killing a civilian. Governments can and do operate clandestinely, the only real question is how much. David Kelly's death came at a very good time for the British Government, he had already proven to be willing to go public with potentially very damning information. My take on it was that he would have continued to make plain his findings until either the British participation in the Iraq war would have become untenable or there would have been a government crisis. The interesting part is that after all the dust settled it all seemed to boil down to the exact definition of what it means when a report is 'sexed up', as vague a term as you could want to have for that purpose. Apparently 'selecting evidence that is convenient whilst leaving out that which is inconvenient' is not enough.
- cubicle67 17y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior if anyone's interested
ftghyujkjmhnbg 17y ago
If you read the article it isn't the suicide verdict that is sealed it is other evidence given tot he inquiry but not published. So perhaps the name of the CIA/Mi5/RAC agents that reported there were weapons, the names of current Iraqi politicians that were working for CIA/MI5/RAC. 70 years is nothing - there are still cabinet meetings from the Napoleonic wars that are sealed.
- nlativy 17y ago
  Surely the presence of names does not justify sealing the documents. Why not simply publish with the names deleted?
- hristov 17y ago
  So they cherry picked some evidence to support a suicide verdict and sealed everything else. The article says that even the evidence they cherry picked was highly dubious. They also sealed the autopsy reports which have nothing to do with intelligence agencies and are highly relevant to the suicide verdict. I know every government conjures some James Bond secret agent fantasies whenever they want to hide something, but it doesn't fly here.
- ftghyujkjmhnbg 17y ago
  There wasn't any doubt about the suicide verdict. The issue was that the scope of the inquiry was limited to investigating a very specific claim - about what David Kelly said about the report. It was not allowed to investigate the real question about the truth of the report and "who sexed it up" In American terms it's like holding an investigation into JFK's death but only considering the cause of death and finding that it was a bullet that killed him.
  - wendroid 17y ago
    There is a lot of doubt surrounding the suicide verdict.

I used to think the death of David Kelly was suicide. Now I am not sure. If there wasn't something highly dubious going on, why would the government keep it secret for 70 years?

jacquesm 17y ago

I lost a lot of confidence in governments in general when the French authorities decided to blow up the Greenpeace boat and ended up killing a civilian. Governments can and do operate clandestinely, the only real question is how much. David Kelly's death came at a very good time for the British Government, he had already proven to be willing to go public with potentially very damning information. My take on it was that he would have continued to make plain his findings until either the British participation in the Iraq war would have become untenable or there would have been a government crisis. The interesting part is that after all the dust settled it all seemed to boil down to the exact definition of what it means when a report is 'sexed up', as vague a term as you could want to have for that purpose. Apparently 'selecting evidence that is convenient whilst leaving out that which is inconvenient' is not enough.

cubicle67 17y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior if anyone's interested

ftghyujkjmhnbg 17y ago

If you read the article it isn't the suicide verdict that is sealed it is other evidence given tot he inquiry but not published. So perhaps the name of the CIA/Mi5/RAC agents that reported there were weapons, the names of current Iraqi politicians that were working for CIA/MI5/RAC. 70 years is nothing - there are still cabinet meetings from the Napoleonic wars that are sealed.

nlativy 17y ago
Surely the presence of names does not justify sealing the documents. Why not simply publish with the names deleted?
hristov 17y ago
So they cherry picked some evidence to support a suicide verdict and sealed everything else. The article says that even the evidence they cherry picked was highly dubious. They also sealed the autopsy reports which have nothing to do with intelligence agencies and are highly relevant to the suicide verdict. I know every government conjures some James Bond secret agent fantasies whenever they want to hide something, but it doesn't fly here.
ftghyujkjmhnbg 17y ago
There wasn't any doubt about the suicide verdict. The issue was that the scope of the inquiry was limited to investigating a very specific claim - about what David Kelly said about the report. It was not allowed to investigate the real question about the truth of the report and "who sexed it up" In American terms it's like holding an investigation into JFK's death but only considering the cause of death and finding that it was a bullet that killed him.
- wendroid 17y ago
  There is a lot of doubt surrounding the suicide verdict.