Certainly, the army boards of inquiry into the deaths of Geoff Gray in 2001 and James Collinson in 2002 demonstrated a level of thoroughness far beyond that shown by their predecessors who tackled the deaths of Cheryl James and Sean Benton at the same Surrey camp in 1995. That alone is welcome to anyone who has tried to follow and understand these events.
But no, they do not close the book. Instead, even on a quick reading, they strengthen the case for the full, independent public inquiry that the families have long demanded.
There are two main arguments for an inquiry, and both are powerfully reinforced. The first is that all the evidence about the deaths needs to be brought out into the open and tested in a way that will satisfy the public. We may never know exactly how and why these young recruits came to die by gunshot while guarding their barracks, but after all that has transpired – including police incompetence and abundant official obfuscation – anything less than an independent inquiry will always leave unacceptable levels of doubt. By adding previously un-aired insights into the deaths (such as the existence of a "warm" gun other than that presumed to have caused the death of Geoff Gray), today's reports only make us wonder what further evidence an exhaustive, independent and public probe might uncover.
And there is no substitute, when you want to get at the truth, for having experienced counsel examining and cross-examining witnesses. There is no evidence of that in these reports, where, to make matters worse, witness evidence is presented in an anonymised fashion that is guaranteed to confuse. For example: "Having been told by XXX and XXX of the incident with the MoD fire officer earlier that evening, XXX decided to check on XXX."
The other principal argument for a public inquiry is the need to hold people to account for the scandalous shambles that was the Deepcut barracks in these years. Even Nicholas Blake, the QC who produced a gravely flawed review of Deepcut evidence for the MoD in 2006, admitted the place was so badly run it was surprising more recruits did not die. Remember, these were generally teenagers, most of whom had left home for the first time only weeks before, and they were neglected, allowed to run amok and, on recorded occasions, bullied, sexually exploited and abused.
Thursday's reports remove the last doubts that this was the virtually inevitable result of deliberate policy decisions by senior army figures, apparently under pressure from ministers. They knowingly left Deepcut underfunded and understaffed, despite clear warnings of the risks. You surely do not need to be related to one of the dead recruits to want those people – the top brass and the politicians – called into a public forum to justify themselves.