Why are the Government so frightened of the truth
Nothing smells of cover up more in the Dr David Kelly affair than the Government's refusal to hold an inquest.
The Hutton inquiry remember did not require any witnesses to be under oath so they could lie to their hearts content, nor did it call the normal witnesses who usually appear at an inquest or allow proper examination of evidence, go through the normal established procedures of an inquest or have dedicated policemen making inquiries on its behalf.
It was also run by a Government whose relationship with the truth was often a strained one.
I may be wrong but I suspect that the only people who fully believe the the Hutton inquiry answered all the questions about the death are on medication and have bars on the windows while those who want us to believe that the inquiry was tantamount to an inquest and explained everything satisfactorily inhabit the darker corners of Whitehall in the shadows of the state machinery.
If the evidence is so cut and dried then why not allow an inquest as with every other suspicious death and put an end to the matter? Let a coroner with a jury decide and put all the conspiracy theories to the test.
It is not as if the call is for another multi-zillion pound Bloody Sunday public inquiry or indeed anything unusual. A proper inquest with witnesses under oath is what would happen with any sudden death whether a simple road accident, a collapse in the street or an obvious suicide. Keep the army of lawyers and their cash registers away and it is a simple, straightforward procedure which happens every day al around the country.
No inquest means no challenge to the official line which means the stench of cover-up and corruption only gets worse.
There is another important point in all this. If the Government are allowed to to get away with denying inquests in cases which may cause embarrassment, sweeping deaths under the carpet on their say so, then we are on a very dangerous road indeed.
Older/Newer
3 Comments
Profile
Roger Clarke - BirminghamâÂÂs very own Grumpy Old Man on what gets right up his nose.
Why was it that a few weeks after Dr Kelly's apparent suicide, the two ambulance workers who were in attendance to the body, widely reported that his so called self inflicted injuries were not consistent with a regular suicide?
Then the next weekend, their story was retracted, and where are they now?
Has anyone cared to ask if Dr Kelly was in the mood for suicide, I do not think he was, he was so convinced that there were no WMD, that he was trying to bring it out into the open for the whole of the UK to make their own judgement.
A cover up or conspiracy, a murder most foul I believe.
Why was it that a few weeks after Dr Kelly's apparent suicide, the two ambulance workers who were in attendance to the body, widely reported that his so called self inflicted injuries were not consistent with a regular suicide?
Then the next weekend, their story was retracted, and where are they now?
Has anyone cared to ask if Dr Kelly was in the mood for suicide, I do not think he was, he was so convinced that there were no WMD, that he was trying to bring it out into the open for the whole of the UK to make their own judgement.
A cover up or conspiracy, a murder most foul I believe.
June 10, 2011 6:49 AM
Which is why there should be an inquest.I have no idea how or why Dr Kelly died but I do know I do not trust a word of the conclusions of the Hutton inquiry. Blair, Campbell and truth go together like lobsters and cricket.
Let us hear all the evidence and test it in open court before a coroner with winesses on oath. If it really was suicide the so be it but the cynic in me after a lifetime as a journalist tells me that if it really was suicide we would have had an inquest with everything done and dusted a long time ago.