h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

What sort of open democracy are we when there is such blatant closing down of information by the powers that be.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7942125/Death-of-Dr-David-Kelly-should-be-re-explored-doctors-say.html


And surely the unprecedented 70 ban on disclosing evidence relating to the death is highly fishy
<>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7066383/David-Kelly-death-evidence-to-be-kept-secret-for-70-years.html

It just seems so sinister that things like this can happen and the government gets away without there being a proper inquiry or independent investigation.

<>


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302939/Dr-David-Kelly-hitlist-says-UN-weapons-expert-calls-grow-inquest.html

Only one person in 5 believes it was suicide

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303356/Dr-Kelly-Just-believes-suicide-official-cause-death-branded-impossible.html

In fairness, the Hutton report was into the issues surrounding the death of David Kelly, not the death itself (which would have been a matter for the police and coroner). And what people may or may not have said in response to an "opinion poll" published without details of methodology or the questions asked is neither here nor there.

Perhaps there should be a fuller enquiry if sufficient experts are unhappy with the findings of the first postmortems. It certainly wouldn't be the first dodgy postmortem that's been done to get the establishment off the hook.

However.... I can't see a sensible reason for suspecting a conspiracy or foul play in the case of the death of David Kelly. The damage had been done already through his conversations with Gilligan, and I can't see what would be gained by killing him, even if you accept that the British security apparatus could or would use assassination under such circumstances - which seems highly doubtful to me. All an assassination would do is draw attention, especially if it was done incompetently. It doesn't make strategic or tactical sense.

It's the same as most wild conspiracy theories - the biggest objection is that even if someone was motivated to do X, they would have to be nuts to try to achieve X in the way that the conspiracy nuts claim.

>Only one person in 5 believes it was suicide

And? Most people in this country believe climate change is an invention. What people believe proves hee-haw.

What Otto said.

Where's my tinfoil hat?

I've always been uncomfortable with it. He might have had motivation to kill himself in the light of the events he had endured, but it would have to have been in the context of a deeper depressive state which there doesn't seem to be any evidence for. He was anxious, naturally, but what was he guilty of, at risk of losing? This was an internationally renowned weapons expert at the top of his game. He was respected and loved. If I was him I'd have felt righteous, if a bit concerned for future employment; not enough though for someone as intelligent and methodical as he must have been to walk out of the house, down 29 painkillers and slash his wrist with a penknife.* He had private talks with Andrew Gilligan. He wanted the truth to be known. Would he not, in those circumstances have left a note? What, if this is the truth, is the justification for burying the coroner's report.

*Fair enough, suicidal ideation can jump out of nowhere, and if you're not prepared I assume it can screw you. But for someone who gets to be called Doctor, and who has visited some of the worst warzones in the world, it would have to be an unprecedented shift of mood, which had obviously not been tempered by the time to think he would have had between deciding to go for a walk with a pocket full of painkillers, and doing the deed.

Oh well

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11050587

D'you know, it wasn't until I saw the headlines today that I realised what everybody had been going on about (only just found this thread ).

I had always assumed that the question about David Kelly's death wasn't 'was he assassinated?', but 'did the actions of the government push him to suicide?'

It never crossed my mind that he might have been assassinated. But if he was, I would have thought those responsible would have been able to cover their tracks sufficiently for both post-mortem *and* inquest to reach a view of suicide. These chaps know what they're doing.

Mol

I agree with Mol. it's about whether Tony and his cronies have any culpability over his death due to their actions. This is what needs to be investigated.

RF

> but 'did the actions of the government push him to suicide?'<

Well I don't see that being opened up - even if such a thing could be proved.

With all the cuts on the way I can imagine there may well be a fair few suicides resulting from that. I've heard it suggested a fair few occured during the Thatcher years due to the smashing of manufacturing and mining, and the effects on communities.

If that's the remit of any investigation, it'll be an interesting precedent.