[Shermy]

"Prat and a fall guy." Like Hatfill?

My (current) intuition says elsewise. Not a fall guy, but a guy who got to involved, thought he knew more than he did, has gripes and is overly sensitive. His "sexed up" comment is not denied - then what else did he say? It seems to have got conflated with the Niger Uranium Letter - and he's not a nuclear expert. He commented upon the "45 minutes" to get bioweapons ready from what I've read. With the libs on the anti-war path with the ridiculous Niger issue precision about what he said is probably lost. I suspect he wanted to get his two cents in, and it came back to bite him.

Here's some things in the article that grabbed me:

"But he omitted to get authorisation for the encounter."
As if he would get it if he asked. B.S.

"He did not believe he was the “main source”"
In other words, he was a source.

"Asked whether he had said anything that Mr Gilligan might have interpreted as identifying Mr Campbell “sexing-up” the dossier, Dr Kelly dodged the question. “I find it very difficult to think back to a conversation I had six weeks ago,” he said.
More B.S. Deflection and diversion. He's crafty - but maybe beyond his abilities to control.

"And the man whose semantic precision was a source of wonder to his admirers concluded: “It does not sound like the sort of thing I would say.”"
Yes, but did he say it? As I said, he's full of B.S. And the fall back on the purity of his religion and such - I wonder why the Times is proffering such a puff piece apologia for this guy.

Anyway, his faults will be ignored so that Blair, the Bush, and the War will be sullied. That's the apparent media focus. The one parallel to Hatfill I can see is Hatfill's overly-knowledgable comment to a "friend" that the anthrax could be made "cheaply, and the equipment dumped in a lake." That one came back to bite him big time.

[arasina]

I think you're correct. You've certainly made this seem less confusing to me. Kelly's testimony at the committee hearing on 7/15 was quite vague and seemed to be evasive comparable to "what the meaning of is is."

[muawiyah]

What you call a "fallback on the purity of his religion" is a very important clue to this man's death.

Folks are presently assuming that someone in the UK government, or at the BBC, or maybe even in the US government murdered this man.

Since he is a member of Baha’i, it's entirely possible it was an Iranian government hit. Remember, Baha'i and the Shi'a mullahs have never hit it off too well and the mullahs quite regularly put these guys on trial and kill them.