On the Death of David Kelly

Andrew Gilligan, writing on how he believes Dr David Kelly was not murdered, concludes his article with the following:

I'm often surprised at the enduring interest in this one man's death. If you seek government culpability, the deaths of 150,000 Iraqis would seem, to me, rather more the point. David's was a mainly personal tragedy – and the reason Lord Hutton circumvented the inquest, and sealed the evidence, was not some conspiracy, but because his family wanted it. Among those calling for an inquest, David's widow and daughters have been notable by their absence.

Now, however, I believe that more harm and distress may be being caused by the endless tide of junk speculation than by holding a proper inquest. We should have one, if only to stop the nonsense once and for all.

I find it odd that Gilligan writes that Iraqi deaths are more the point than David Kelly's death. Personally, I think that they are both points in their own right - albeit, points about different things. Iraqi deaths make a point about the horror of an illegal war, the death of Dr David Kelly makes a point about the cruel efficiency of a government determined to pursue a new war against Iraq, and its willingness to brand anyone who might dissent as the enemy.

Kelly's death was a personal tragedy, but it was a personal tragedy with considerable public implications. I can fully understand why the family might not want all information about the death of a loved one broadcast across the country. Yet what Hutton failed to understand is the concerns that many have about the behaviour of a secretive, spin obsessed government towards both David Kelly and the march to war in Iraq. By all means do what the family wants and keep some information secret; where Hutton failed was in his inability to answer or even seemingly address the concerns of those who felt there was something more, something untoward, about the David Kelly tragedy.

Now, I've got no divine insights into the death of David Kelly - personally, I think it is more likely that he committed suicide than he was murdered but since the circumstances surrounding his death is about as clear as mud it is difficult to say anything definite. Which is actually the real point here - the point that Gilligan misses. We should have a proper inquest because we live in a democracy where the actions of our government should be transparent. In this case, the government was anything other than transparent; a sin compounded by the fact that some many people have been calling for a proper inquest. The demands of the people are being ignored...

Basically, a proper inquest isn't - and shouldn't - be about stopping nonsense; it should be about addressing the very genuine concerns people have about how the government treats its people and the fundamental lack of government openness about such crucial issues as life and death in a society which, in rhetoric at least, calls itself free and democratic.