I will make a prediction for you...,

Should the community continue to make gains in casting doubt on this event and the way it was presented to them; you will be hearing the most 'trusted' public figures change their stanza from "move along, nothing to see here" to "We must focus our attention and energy on the issues of the presents and not be looking backwards." Meanwhile others will simply decry any attempts to enhance the understanding of the death and those associated with it as "looking to play political blame games" and "detractors from whats really important."

Of course, we all know that it is they who get to define what is important; and if it might cause them shame or grief... we know THAT will be said to be "not important."

Trouble with something like the Dr Kelly case is that there will always be someone not happy with the results of the findings.
Another side of the coin is if enough people demand it no matter what the results, a full, unbiased and independant enquiry MUST and SHOULD be done.
ALL evidence should be investigated fully, but to be honest I cannot help but think there was something amiss with the original enquiry.

There are a multitude of concerns about the death of Dr Kelly. When Mr Grieve made his statement to MPs on the 9th June he mentioned one of these concerns: this was about the possible movement of the body between its discovery at 09.15 on 18/7/2003 and the necessary movement of the body at the time of the forensic pathologist's examination after midday.

In support of the suicide conclusion by Lord Hutton Mr Grieve stated that the body wasn't moved. Here are a few facts:
1 The volunteer searcher (Louise Holmes) whose dog found the body approaches to a distance of about 4 feet from the body. She states in her police witness statement that the body has its head and shoulders slumped against a tree. She says the same thing at the Hutton Inquiry and later in a youtube video.
2. Her fellow searcher (Paul Chapman) is the person referred to by Mr Grieve who changes his statement from lying flat in his police statement to having his back against the tree at the inquiry. However at the Hutton inquiry he says he doesn't get closer than 15 to 20 metres when the body is found (about 50 to 65 feet)
3. At the Hutton Inquiry the first policeman at the scene, Detective Constable Coe, says the body is on its back but in a Mail on Sunday article of 8/8/2010 has his head and shoulders against a large tree.
4. Lord Hutton in chapter 5 of his report of 28/1/2003 says he has seen a photograph of the body with its head slumped against the base of a tree.
5. About 45 minutes after the body discovery an ambulance crew arrives on scene to check the body for life. One of the two crew Dave Bartlett finds there is enough space between the head and the tree for him to stand and operate in this area.
6. Prior to making his statement Mr Grieve had brought in another forensic pathologist Dr Shepherd to produce a Forensic Medical Report. In it Dr Shepherd makes clear that the photographs show a 'significant gap' between the head and the tree.

Someone isn't telling the truth!