Please check out my earlier post on this.

The BBC made statements that the Blair administration said were not true. The BBC said they had a source for these statements, but would not say who it was.

Kelly was interrogated. He admitted talking to the BBC but said he did not say the things attributed to him. He was accused of covering up for the government. It was assumed that he was not the source.

The BBC's Gilligan has since admitted Kelly was, in fact, his only source.

From another story:

Politicians across the ideological spectrum accused the BBC of inaccurately reporting Kelly's comments, citing his parliamentary testimony that while he spoke privately to Gilligan, he did not recognize the journalist's most damaging claims as his own.

"I believe I am not the main source," Kelly told the committee. "From the conversation I had, I don't see how (Gilligan) could make the authoritative statement he was making."

So you tell me. Is Gilligan lying, or was Kelly? What keeps a reporter from attributing anything he wants to "anonymous sources" that cannot speak up without losing their jobs or worse, or maybe in some cases don't even exist?

It is entirely feasible that the BBC put words in Kelly's mouth, assuming there was no way they could be called on it. The BBC is already on record as having "cooked" the news in the past for their obvious political agenda. Is anyone going to look at this aspect of it, or is this all just going to be some frantic attempt to lay the suicide at Tony Blair's doorstep?

Note the incredible and shameless contention in this article that if Blair had not defended himself from the accusations, Kelly would still be alive:

Dr Kelly’s death will have left him deeply troubled, the more so because he will know that he is in large part culpable. He authorised Mr Campbell to go on the offensive against the BBC over suggestions by Mr Gilligan — in an interview, not a news report — that Downing Street had “sexed up” last September’s dossier on Iraqi weapons. Had Mr Campbell not done so, the stories about government doctoring of that dossier would have faded away, rather than dominating the news agenda for the past seven weeks. And had Mr Campbell not done so, with Mr Blair’s authorisation, Dr Kelly would still be alive today.

Oh, yeah, the story would have "faded away." As they like to say, "Pull the other one. It has bells on it."

Maybe had Gilligan not used Kelly as a dupe in his political war against Blair, Kelly would still be alive, too.