David Kelly death not suicide, says Norman Baker MP
- Thread starter Kid_Eternity
- Start date
i_hate_beckham
Him From A Village
I wouldn't be shocked if he was killed by the men in black.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Only in smallville could one not suspect a conspirarcy.
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
The opening post illustrates just why I detest those who spout evidence-free crap about everything so. This enables those, like the Last Century Left, who want to sweep all parapolitical analysis under the carpet (except when it involves George Galloway's views/treatment) to utter debate-concluding cliches like 'conspiraloon' with ease. That way, when there is genuine skulduggery, those involved can sleep easy knowing that nobody will take evidence of such seriously. The case of David Kelly seems a prima facie case of just such dirty tricks--it will be interesting to see what line the BBC take on this one.
Addition: just looked at the link, and prominence is given to a claim the Iraqis might have done it! Rather convenient, when there are more plausible candidates closer to home (if it was indeed murder of course).
Addition: just looked at the link, and prominence is given to a claim the Iraqis might have done it! Rather convenient, when there are more plausible candidates closer to home (if it was indeed murder of course).
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Larry O'Hara said:
There is a big different between a scientist being killed by others and Sept 11 being faked...
I hate conspiracy theorist precisely because of what you mentioned. It distracts from institutional analysis and allows the powerful to dismiss scrutiny and dissent as loonery as conspiracy 'theory'.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
firky said:
Either way he died he was killed, at his own or others' hands...
Norman has been banging on about this for quite a while now
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...article_id=397256&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...article_id=397256&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source
Larry O'Hara
Well-Known Member
Kid_Eternity said:
I am glad we agree on this--although I hope you would also agree that the original reference to 'conspiraloons' has the effect of distorting the picture as it invites us to look, even if momentarily, at the Kelly case through that distorted prism. And, as it happens, I don't like the word conspiraloon anyway: it psychiatrises politics a tad too much for my liking.
Kid_Eternity
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Larry O'Hara said:
Use of the word was a comment on the expected loonary associated with things like this. Any hint of oddity in evidence etc is always spun into proof of lizards, holographic planes and all manner of wild eyed weirdness by them.
I use the pseudo psychiatric characterisation of the phrase because I really believe these 'true believers' are about as sane as those that say the bible is the literal history of the world.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
i wonder, if we can cease this nonsense abotu the pettyness of what defines consprialoons and focaus ont he salitent points, thanks, lara 
fucking derail ffs, what happens if it does turn out to be a state sponsourer killing wouldn't that certainly put blair hutton and a good few others into the dock straight away...
fucking derail ffs, what happens if it does turn out to be a state sponsourer killing wouldn't that certainly put blair hutton and a good few others into the dock straight away...
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Of course they killed him. We don't officially have capital punishment in this country, but some people's crimes are so bad they have to be topped innit...
I did not know that Coroner Nicholas Gardiner's inquest into Kelly's death was ordered to adjourn by the Lord Chancellor.
The Hutton inquiry was considered by many to be a complete white wash, so I wouldn't have too much confidence in the conclusions it reached about the cause of death.
The Hutton inquiry was considered by many to be a complete white wash, so I wouldn't have too much confidence in the conclusions it reached about the cause of death.
pembrokestephen
New Member
Course, the opposite corollary of this could be that conspiraloons, by their overweening readiness to leap to all kinds of wrong conclusions, undermine the value of genuine open-minded thinking...Larry O'Hara said:
(though, having seen some excellent examples of the conspiraloon oeuvre here on Urban over the years, I have to say that it's not all that hard to identify the difference between conspiraloonery and open-mindedness - they just like to insist that drawing unfeasible conclusions from facts not in evidence is an example of such open-mindedness).
My understanding is that the Hutton Enquiry was convened so as to include the role of an inquest and, hence, the coronoers inquest would be duplication. This is fairly standard practice in murder cases where all the issues have been thoroughly examined in a criminal trial and the coroner then decides there is no need to also hold an inquest, but that is the coroner's decision. I'm not sure what the mechanism was here.TAE said:
Although inquests are not a very good forum for investigating what led up to a death (they are restricted to discovering the who / when / where / of what of the death and little more), it would probably have been far better than a more wide-ranging enquiry in relation to the point now in issue - did Dr Kelly kill himself. If, however, it concluded he did, it would not go very far into the background to establish why, certainly not as far as the Hutton Enquiry did (regardless of it's conclusions).
It is another example of a case which demonstrates the absence of any effective available means for publicly examining the evidence in a case, including cross-examination of, for instance, investigating officers where there is no criminal trial. Inquests are too restricted (and only apply to fatal cases anyway) and public enquiries are too expensive / slow / cumbersome / prone to being politically "steered" by terms of reference.
I really do think it is time we considered something else - effectively a public trial of the conclusions reached by a state agency when investigating or deciding on criminal charges (be it the police, the IPCC, the CPS or others). There is no need for the cost to be high, or the time to be extensive - they have already reached their conclusions and have (presumably) got their heads around the evidence for them. All this would be would be an examination of those conclusions and the evidence (including cross-examination in appropriate cases) in public, with the hearing (which could sit with a jury) being empowered to substitute it's own finding or direct further investigations.
Unfortunately there are a lot of common means of suicide (jumping off high places, diving in front of trains, jumping off ships mid-Atlantic, etc.) which (a) tend to be done in witness-less places, (b) could be the result of minimum force being used to push / throw the victim and, hence, leave no trace even if the body were recovered and (c) leave no physical trace evidence at the scene.rich! said:
Many suicides cannot be proven as such and the finding tends to be based on suicide notes (not always left by any means), history of depression / suicide attempts (not always the case by any means) or whatever.
Investigation of the Dr Kelly incident, insofar as cause of death is concerned, would involve:
1. Close examination of the place his body was found
2. Close examination of his body
3. Examination of his background, especially in the few days / weeks leading up to his death to establish any suicidal impulses (though these would not, of themselves, be proof in either direction)
4. Perhaps most importantly, a detailed examination of the minutes / hours prior to his death as, if he was murdered, there would need to be a time and a place that those responsible encountered him.
My understanding of the investigation is that there is a significant period of time when he went walking alone in the countryside and, quite literally, anything could have happened. I suspect the outcome of the investigation, therefore, has been that (a) it appears to be suicide; (b) nothing has been found which suggests otherwise and (c) but there is nothing to prove what happened one way or the other.
I know there is talk of mysterious people being seen around in the woods / fields around the time but, from my sources, I understand that these have all been investigated and adequately explained. But, of course, that has not been explained and tested in public.
detective-boy said:
Yes, it's a known unknown.
A more interesting question is: is it possible to examine the evidence and make a judgement whether he was driven to suicide?
After all, relentless bullying is known to cause people to commit suicide; his last few months certainly seem like relentless bullying; would anyone have benefitted from the removal of Dr Kelly from the scene?
As an investigator, I would say that there is only usually one place where the evidence to prove that is and that is in the mind of the victim. We cannot, therefore, no matter how thorough the investigation, ever get direct evidence proving it.rich! said:
We can find indirect evidence - suicide notes; comments made by the deceased to family, friends, colleagues; observed changes in behaviour / health over time or whatever but, at it's very best, that will never prove whether the victim was driven to it.
And, in a way, the criminal justice system and it's linked police investigation, would not be particularly concerned about that as no crime would usually have been committed (the exception being if it was so bad as to amount to psychiatric assault and that would, almost by definition, have been extremely likely to have been clearly observed (and probably complained about) by others over a period of time).
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
There was an interesting article in Private Eye recently concerning Dr Kelly.
If Dr Kelly had been dismissed, as was looking likely, he would have lost his pension rights. OK, I hear you ask, what is the relevance of that? The relevance is this; up until a few years ago, Dr Kelly would have been paying seperately for a pension for his wife, this pension was a ' stand alone ' entity, and therefore would not have been affected by Dr Kelly losing his pension. A few years back however, the spouses pension became an integral part of the whole pension package, so, if Dr Kelly had been dismissed, his wife would have lost her pension rights too.
If I am dismissed for misconduct, and that is the crux, Mrs Sas would lose the pension entitlement that she would otherwise have had on my demise.
Given that I'm a union rep, and have a pathological inability to go along with the departmental line when it comes to lieing to the public, gtting dismissed for misconduct is not impossible. The bulk of my pension money is not with the Civil Service, and won't be, for this very reason.
If Dr Kelly had been dismissed, as was looking likely, he would have lost his pension rights. OK, I hear you ask, what is the relevance of that? The relevance is this; up until a few years ago, Dr Kelly would have been paying seperately for a pension for his wife, this pension was a ' stand alone ' entity, and therefore would not have been affected by Dr Kelly losing his pension. A few years back however, the spouses pension became an integral part of the whole pension package, so, if Dr Kelly had been dismissed, his wife would have lost her pension rights too.
If I am dismissed for misconduct, and that is the crux, Mrs Sas would lose the pension entitlement that she would otherwise have had on my demise.
Given that I'm a union rep, and have a pathological inability to go along with the departmental line when it comes to lieing to the public, gtting dismissed for misconduct is not impossible. The bulk of my pension money is not with the Civil Service, and won't be, for this very reason.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
hiccup said:
And the public, encouraged by the media, cannot handle these.rich! said:
It is a constant irritation to me how they demand to know everything and, if it is not known it means that either (a) the investigation is incompetent or (b) there has been a cover-up.
We live in as world where lots of things simply cannot every be retrospectively discovered - we will not, and cannot ever, know. People MUST learn to live with that fact.
detective-boy said:
Where it gets interesting is that we know (in some cases) wings of the gov't have deliberately engaged in muddying the waters, whether by planting fake evidence, removing real evidence, smearing witnesses, or whatever. Now that makes it plain impossible to get to the root of what happened.
Which brings me back to the Beria quote: I sourced it from the late Robert Anton Wilson's "Schroedinger's Cat" trilogy; if you haven't read it, you'll probably enjoy it...
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
It would be curious for a scientist to choose to commit suicide using co-proxamol (although, of course, people who are suicidal do curious things).from that BBC article said:
I understand that, statistically, men are more likely to hang themselves than take some form of overdose (which I understand is statistically the preferred choice of females).
I presume that Dr David Kelly, being a scientist, would have researched the toxicity of whatever he was intending to take. He could easily have found out the required fatal dose, and yet above it states that toxicology reports suggest that there wasn't enough painkiller in his system to kill him.
Also, Coproxamol is a paracetamol based product. If he'd done some research (as would seem likely for a diligent scientists), he would have known that paracetamol at certain doseages is fatal. But a person taking paracetamol runs a risk: An overdose can also induce vomiting, meaning that an insufficient amount of the drug is ingested (and this does not appear to be the reason here why there wasn't a fatal dose of the drug in his system).
It can very easily be ascertained that in overdose, paracetamol taken at less than a fatal dose can cause liver failure. And there have been instances where people attempting suicide have changed their minds and gone to hospital for a stomach pump, only to die a slow and painful death over the course of a couple of weeks from liver failure.
It doesn't seem conceivable that a scientist who would have access to that information would have opted for this method of suicide, if that was indeed his aim.
Sometimes. But often the more complex something gets, the more likely it is that something will be overlooked, something out of place will be noticed, someone will say something or whatever and the whole thing will begin to unravel.rich! said:
If you were planning any crime you would be well advised to (a) keep it simple and (b) only tell people on a "need to know" basis (and design it so that very few did!).
This applies to all government bodies just as much - the idea which conspiraloons have that all members of all government bodies can be trusted to get involved with the most outrageous government inspired plots and schemes and never utter a word about it to anyone ever is simply ridiculous.
Similar threads
