I had concluded in my mind, after analysing the facts and available information as carefully and objectively as I could, that David Kelly's death could not have been suicide, and that therefore it must have been murder.
Having carefully looked at the evidence, Norman Baker is convinced that David Kelly was murdered (by person or persons unknown).
To the best of my knowledge Norman Baker has uncovered no new evidence since the publication of "The Strange Death of David Kelly" to cast doubt on his view that the death of David Kelly was murder.
On the contrary, there is much new evidence calling into question the "suicide hypothesis" adopted as fact by the Hutton Inquiry. Some of that new evidence has been presented to the Attorney General. See, for example, The Death of David Kelly - Interim List of Correspondence to the Attorney General.
At the time of writing that book Norman Baker was a backbench MP.
Now he is a junior minister in the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government.
Dominic Grieve is the Attorney General in that government.
If Dominic Grieve refuses to go to the High Court to seek an inquest into the death of David Kelly what will Norman Baker do?
Morally, he surely must resign since (in this hypothetical situation) the Attorney General in the same Government is, in effect, covering up a murder.
Politically, the pressures on Norman Baker not to resign are enormous. His resignation could, in theory, fracture the coalition.
The dilemma facing Norman Baker if Dominic Grieve says "No" is a particularly difficult one.
However, if an MP who believes a death is murder acquiesces to an as yet hypothetical cover-up by the Attorney General doesn't he lose any semblance of credibility?
The level of public trust in Members of Parliament is already low. Surely the credible impression that an MP will, for reasons of party or personal advantage, continue in a Government that chooses (hypothetically, as yet) to cover up a murder will bring trust in MPs to a new low!