The oldest trick in the judicial book - sum up against the evidence.

Has there ever been a judicial inquiry into something that would really seriously embarrass the government of the day which came out with a report that really tore into it?

Nearest thing was the Scott Inquiry into Arms Sales to Iraq back in 1996. Sir Richard Scott was too honest to whitewash the government, so he backed off from coming out with a summary of conclusions which would have either been openly critical of the Government or blatantly false, by the cunning process of not having any conclusions at all, and just serving up the evidence. To a very considerable extent the Government was able to spin this into "clearing it".

This time Hutton did the traditional judicial trick - he summed up clear against the evidence.

Maybe he was doing what he suggested the boss of Intelligence did - "subconsciously" adjust his report so as to fall into line with what he knew the Government wanted to read.

Let them know what you want to be told are the facts, and then say you are only acting on the basis of what you were told were the facts. Perfect.