The first hit for "dodgy dossier suicide" is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)

Edit: I can't reply to the child but here are some salient quotes from the wiki...

"I will wait until the end of the week before judging – many dark actors playing games. Thanks for your support." - Dr Kelly

"it was subsequently established that neither the knife nor the blister packs showed Kelly's fingerprints on their surfaces"

"The former leader of the Conservative Party, Michael Howard, and the former Liberal Democrat MP, Norman Baker, both think Kelly was murdered.[173] In 2007 Baker published The Strange Death of David Kelly in which he argued that Kelly did not commit suicide."

That's a source that a man killed himself. It was suggested he was actually murdered by the Brit govt. Source for that claim?

I doubt you'll find a credible source - the security services are afterall very good at what they do. It's all circumstantial, but at the time you'd have been hard-pressed to find a single citizen who believed Kelly very conveniently killed himself at just the right time to prevent further damage to the government and their web of lies with the US.

I'm not sure I see what the theory is here. I could understand an argument that Kelly was killed to send a message, but it's hard to see what damage it could have prevented. If anything, his death confirmed the web of lies; the whole thing wouldn't have been a big deal if it were just a question of minor messaging details as the government was claiming.

It wasn't about sending message. The theory is that Kelly could have revealed he was told to fake evidence, and could have provided confirmation of who knew what, and importantly, when.

It was about timing too - it was a critical point for Blair and Bush getting the war they so desired. Keeping in mind there was already huge opposition to the war, proper 1st hand evidence being revealed at that point could well have resulted in Blair having to stand down, and potentially even the British not joining the war. Which of course the US services would not have liked.

The timeline's definitely not right for that. The British had already joined the war; Kelly died 4 months after the invasion.

Then I must concede that I am mis-remembering the timeline.

That's shit though. That can be said of anything. Moon landings were faked but the CIA is very good at what they do.

There is a bit of a difference - we have an abundance of evidence disproving the fake moon landing stories. OTOH, there were no witnesses of Kelly's death, and the timing was so very convenient - frankly, it's naive to think our security services wouldn't do this, especially with what was at stake. Keep in mind the the US and UK were fabricating evidence as justification for an illegal war. One that they knew would claim many, many casualties, and for which they must have known would end up destabilising the whole region and growing fundamentalists and terrorists (this was certainly obvious to many at the time).

I do see your point, mind, but I don't think such damning circumstantial evidence is "shit"; by that logic, MI6 could never be responsible for anything, unless of course they signed a confession.