A reply to Peter Oborne
I can understand why Peter Oborne had trouble making sense of my post yesterday about the move of Norman Baker (pictured) to the Home Office. It included an old post from Independent Blogs in 2009 when it was on LiveJournal, which itself included a footnote that Oborne has assumed is a contemporary addition.
He has obviously forgotten that he contacted me at the time, four years ago, and I added the footnote to make it clear that he did not think that David Kelly had definitely been murdered – merely that this was a possibility. I didn’t think this made him look more sensible, but I was keen not to misrepresent him.
What I cannot understand is that Oborne has trouble making sense of what he himself said four years ago, and which he repeats today:
Lord Hutton failed even in his most basic of tasks, which was to fulfil his remit to examine ‘the circumstances surrounding the death of David Kelly’. Only a tiny proportion of his 700-page report was devoted to examining the weapons expert’s cause of death.
That was because the evidence of suicide was overwhelming.
Worse, Oborne went on, and repeats it now:
Dr Kelly may, of course, have died in the way Lord Hutton suggested – but it was deeply unprofessional of him simply to brush aside so many suspicious factors that might have led to a different conclusion.
He therefore thinks that David Kelly might have been murdered: what other “different conclusion” could there have been? In which case, he must expect to be called a conspiracy theorist.
I have repeatedly tried to persuade Oborne not to make a fool of himself over this, but it has been in vain.Tagged in: david kelly, peter oborne
Latest from Independent journalists on Twitter