Talk:David Kelly

David Kelly's death wasn't murder.

1. If it had been murder, his wrists would have been well and truly slit.
2. There was no point in the UKG killing him, he had no secrets to tell, and nothing to embarrass them with. In fact, quite the reverse, his death drew huge attention on the position of the UKG and caused considerable embarrassment to Tony Blair and other politicos.
3. Nor would the Iraqis have done it to him - he'd have been back there in a few days, and they could have shot him in an alleyway with nobody lifting an eyebrow. Toolbox 20:52, 15 May 2011 (IST)

Disagree on point 1. Too many anomalies with the medical evidence + stubborn refusal to have that evidence tested to inquest standards + many other others.

'Qui-bono?' usually points clearly to the major suspects but in this case less obviously so. I have always leaned towards US SIS sponsorship with two interlocking motives viz: DK's deep knowledge of bio-warfare anthrax technicalities, personalities and production methods (Finalising Bruce Ivins as the US Anthrax letters Patsie was in progress and DK was a serious potential problem on that score) and a sort of 'get back in line or else' demonstration to UK SIS's. For sure there are UK TV policemen and others who remain silent on evidence that would effectively kill the official narrative once and for all - though I doubt anyone outside the UK SIS's know the real perpetrators for sure. --Peter P 06:49, 16 May 2011 (IST)

How would David Kelly have been a problem as regards nailing Bruce Ivins for the Anthrax letters? In the event, it took 7 years for Irvins to be first seriously implicated according to the other place - are you saying that Kelly would have fingered Irvins much sooner?:

For some time, the FBI focused its investigation on Steven Hatfill, considering him to be the chief suspect in the attacks. In March 2008, however, authorities exonerated Hatfill and settled the lawsuit he initiated for $5.8 million. According to ABC News, some in the FBI considered Ivins a suspect as early as 2002. FBI Director Robert Mueller|Robert S. Mueller III changed leadership of the investigation in late 2006, and at that time Ivins became the main focus of the investigation. The FBI thought Ivins, who had complained about the limits of testing anthrax drugs on animals, might have sent the anthrax letters in order to test a vaccine he had been developing.

After Hatfill was no longer considered a suspect, Ivins began "showing signs of serious strain". As a result of his changed behavior, he lost access to sensitive areas at his job. He began being treated for depression and expressed some suicidal thoughts. On March 19, 2008 police were summoned to Ivins' home in Frederick, MD, found him unconscious and sent him to the hospital.

Late in July 2008, investigators informed Ivins of his impending prosecution for his alleged involvement in the 2001 anthrax attacks that Ivins himself had previously assisted authorities in investigating. It has been reported that the death penalty would have been sought in the case. Ivins maintained his security clearance until July 10; he had been publicly critical of the lab's security procedures for several years.

Dr. W. Russell Byrne, a colleague who worked in the bacteriology division of the Fort Detrick research facility, said FBI agents "hounded" Ivins by twice raiding his home and that Ivins had been hospitalized for depression earlier in the month. According to Byrne and local police, Ivins had been removed from his workplace out of fears that he might harm himself or others. "I think he was just psychologically exhausted by the whole process", Byrne said. "There are people who you just know are ticking bombs", Byrne said. "He was not one of them." However, Tom Ivins, who last spoke to his brother in 1985, said, "It makes sense ... he considered himself like a god".

The Los Angeles Times asserted that Ivins stood to profit from the attacks because he was a co-inventor on two patents for a genetically-engineered anthrax vaccine. The San Francisco-area biotechnology company, VaxGen, licensed the vaccine and won a federal contract valued at $877.5 million to provide the vaccine under the Project Bioshield Act. However, biological warfare and anthrax vaccine expert Dr. Meryl Nass has expressed skepticism of this purported motive, pointing out that "Historically, government employees do not receive these royalties: the government does."

On August 6, 2008, a federal prosecutor, U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor, officially made a statement that Ivins was the "sole culprit" in the 2001 anthrax attacks. Taylor stated that Ivins had submitted false anthrax evidence to throw investigators off of his trail, was unable to adequately explain his late laboratory working hours around the time of the attacks, tried to frame his co-workers, had immunized himself against anthrax in early September 2001, was one of more than 100 people with access to the same strain of anthrax used in the killings, and had used similar language in an email to that in one of the anthrax mailings. Ivins was also reportedly upset that the anthrax vaccine, that he had spent years helping develop, was being pulled from the market. Toolbox 18:17, 5 June 2011 (IST)

1. The medical evidence against suicide seems pretty compelling; if it had been murder, he would have died. Authorities refusing to follow proper procedure only aggravates initial concern.

"Qui bono"? Apparently DK was writing a book which may well have been an unwelcome development for UKG (or others?) and may have signalled a more general intent to spill whatever beans he had collected. I don't assume he had no secrets. There may be a connection with Ivins, for example. Robin 20:33, 3 September 2011 (IST)

Are you saying we could mark this article as "Not Controversial after all?" The credibility of Wikispooks is hardly enhanced if it hosts affairs over which there is no realistic doubt. Toolbox 19:39, 4 September 2011 (IST)

I am saying that Halpin's arguments, combined with other unexplained circumstances, fits the pattern that he was suicided by person or persons unknown. I think many people would find this controversial. Robin 20:02, 4 September 2011 (IST)