Several petitions have called upon the Attorney General to re-open the inquest in the death of Dr David Kelly. I believe the motivation of those seeking the enquiry is to continue to keep the way in which we entered into a war in Iraq in the public domain. The Chilcot enquiry continues to make slow progress (now costing at least three million pounds and counting), and it should hopefully report after October 2013, surely this would be the vehicle to use – not the inquest into an honourable man who did at least point out the errors in the intelligence gathering. I doubt the Chilcot enquiry will satisfy anyone, it is unlikely to conclude crimes were committed, but neither would a inquest.
Kelly’s death will continue to puzzle those close to him and those examining the evidence. The medical evidence is unclear and open to interpretation, and the witness reports contradictory. However if the secret intelligence services were involved (be they American, Iraqi, French or British) the truth will not be found at an inquest. The medical evidence is unclear and no matter what the conclusion, there would still be doubters. There are as many experts accepting the medical evidence as challenging it.
As an experienced human resources practitioner, I would hope that the Ministry of Defence has learnt some lessons about protecting staff from a media circus in difficult circumstances and treating individuals who have given many years of loyal and valuable service better than was the lot of David Kelly.
Norman Baker, MP wrote about conflicting evidence, hot on the conspiracy thread in his book, and now we have a biography by Robert Lewis who concludes David Kelly sadly took his own life. Neither book has looked at the similar fate of other scientists.
Since 2001, there have been numerous deaths of biological weapons scientists – or bioweaponeers as the Americans like to call them. Many like the death of Kelly leave people puzzled and querying the evidence and wondering if there was involvement of the secret intelligence services.
The question that needs answering is, what should be the retirement plan for these individuals, many, by nature of the work being post second world war, are retiring. With the increase of terrorism in the world should we be concerned and provide a security detail for individuals whose information on biological weapons could prove useful to individuals wishing society harm.
I have researched these issues over a ten-year period and feel they should be exposed, discussed and thought about. You might find these articles interesting: An article from 2006 by Oleg Gordievski http://wapo.st/197Yz6t , and an article from March 2013 http://bit.ly/13LFWo7 quoting Gordievski and the number of spies still operating in the UK. Is there a link between the approach of the FSB and similar intelligence agencies and the death of the scientists – possibly. This is not about Dr Kelly, whose wife accepts his death was suicide, but it is a global issue and I would love to hear your thoughts on the wide perspective about keeping our scientists safe, and perhaps more importantly the information they hold away from terrorists.