Ultron

No the BBC is apparently making Kelly to be their best source, even though he emphatically denied being any major source. If he was their best source, they're in trouble.

Ron Garrett

I asked G. Gordon Liddy why, when there was absolutely no chance in hell of Nixon being defeated, would Nixon's inner circle decide to burglarize the Democratic HQ and take that kind of risk? His reply was that in hindsight it seems obvious that Nixon was a shoe-in, but at the time it didn't seem that way and they all felt that the Democrats, dominated by left-wing anti-war activists, would be the death of the country as a world power, and they were not willing to take the risk. To which I replied, "Sounds like tunnel vision and paranoia to me." His response, "Tunnel vision maybe, but remember, they really were out to get us."

I have to say after spending three days with him I came away convinced Liddy was one of the brightest and most engaging men I've ever met. The Jesuits at Fordham trained him well. In an 800 on one public exchange with our faculty, Liddy kicked their asses for three hours. Proves you can be really bright and still do manifestly stupid things that are ultimately against your own interest.

Blixy Sticks

Ahhhh...a fellow Jesuit. The Jesuits sure can produce them.........me, Gordon Liddy, Fidel Castro. It's nice to be in such infamous company.

seanie

Whilst the killing of Finucane is a scandal there's bugger all evidence it was instigated at a political/governmental level. Again that wouldn't make sense.

Finucane wasn't really important in the wider scheme of things. Would a senior politician get involved in the risks of murder for no discernible benefit? Possible but not likely. Finucane was probably killed for more personal reasons. A few pissed off low to middle ranking intelligenge officers who'd seen him free IRA men. They had a grudge. So they used their contacts to have him killed. In the murky world of NI politics that would've been fairly easy. No shortage of tooled up psychopaths and terrorists who you've infiltrated. All it takes is a nudge and a wink, a photocopied file and a couple of photos. Push 'em in the right direction and you can have him killed at arms length. Low risk. And it's just another murder amongst the many of the troubles.

Guess what?

There's precious few suggestible paramilitaries roaming the countryside of Oxfordshire.

Dr Kelly is a whole different ballgame. Even in the extremely unlikely event that killing him seemed a good idea, the practical risks would be enormous.

Can we absolutely rule out foul play on behalf of the British state?

No.

Should we take that possibility seriously?

Should we buggery.

And as for this;

I don't know the detailed evidence the BBC has to back up their claims. But if they do indeed have contemporaneous notes and taped conversations of Dr Kelly saying what they reported him to have said then they're pretty much in the clear.

Regardless of whether Dr Kelly regarded himself to be the main source.

That shouldn't be too difficult to grasp.