David Kelly death not suicide, says Norman Baker MP

[AnnO'Neemus]

Oi! Sas! Would you mind please deleting that image? I know Alastair Campbell's a cunt, I just don't need to see a picture of one. It's putting me off my breakfast.

Cheers.

 

[detective-boy]

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).

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.

All very interesting and lots of reasons why an investigator would want to double check the actual evidence. And perhaps go a bit further than they would do otherwise to check things out.

But absolutely no evidence at all to say that suicide was impossible.

 

[scifisam]

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories in general, because I just don't think our governments are that well-organised, basically, and they would never trust each other enough to be able to band together and construct a plausible lie.

However, this man's death was just a little too convenient, and it wouldn't have taken a big conspiracy to get him killed. Ann O'Neemus is right about paracetamol being an odd choice, especially since I shouldn't imagine Kelly would have had much difficulty obtaining much more potent pharmaceutical ways of killing himself.

 

[editor]

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).

If someone is suicidal, there's not always a method to their madness.

There's a film out now about suicides from the Golden Gate Bridge. Apparently one 'jumper' is seen jogging along the bridge and having a chat on his mobile and then -whoosh! - over the edge he went.

If the camera hadn't captured the actual jump, you could imagine observers conjuring up all sorts of conspiracy theories about what really happened to the bloke ("he seemed fine to me..." "he was jogging by.. why would someone who looks after their body want to kill themselves" etc etc).

 

[scifisam]

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.

I find it quite shocking that someone could pay thousands and thousands of pounds into what is, basically, an investment, and then have it taken off him as part of being fired. Even moreso that a spouse who has not actually done anything wrong at all would lose all her money too! That's abhorrent.

 

[editor]

I find it quite shocking that someone could pay thousands and thousands of pounds into what is, basically, an investment, and then have it taken off him as part of being fired. Even moreso that a spouse who has not actually done anything wrong at all would lose all her money too! That's abhorrent.

The way Kelly was treated was an absolute disgrace from start to finish.

 

[yield]

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.

Not from the drugs or the injury.

Sitting next to Bartlett is his colleague, Vanessa Hunt. Like him, she has been a paramedic for more than 15 years. She does not hesitate either. 'There just wasn't a lot of blood... When somebody cuts an artery, whether accidentally or intentionally, the blood pumps everywhere. I just think it is incredibly unlikely that he died from the wrist wound we saw.'

source.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

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).

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.

Interesting stuff and I wondered those sort of things at the time, that and the timing of the death itself made me suspicious. For the powers that be, its all a little bit too convenient isnt it?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

All very interesting and lots of reasons why an investigator would want to double check the actual evidence. And perhaps go a bit further than they would do otherwise to check things out.

But absolutely no evidence at all to say that suicide was impossible.

Sorry for any misunderstanding there detective-boy.

I completely agree with you.

I'm not at all saying that my opinion is 'evidence', more that it's food for thought, these may be reasons worth looking into as they might contradict any counter opinion (and I say opinion, as opposed to evidence for the opposite hypothesis too) that it was suicide.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

If someone is suicidal, there's not always a method to their madness.

I agree. It stands to reason because suicide attempts are often caused by an imbalanced mind.

But then again, lots of people seeking to attempt suicide do their research. There's plenty of information around, especially over the internet, and especially if you're intelligent enough to way up the pros and cons of alternative methods and work out the statistical likelihood of each method's 'success' rate.

Again, just an opinion on my part, but it strikes me as curious that a person who is otherwise logical, i.e. an eminent scientist, whose professional life revolves around venturing a hypothesis, marshalling evidence for and against it, coming to conclusions... well... again, as I said to detective-boy, my opinion is simply an opinion, it isn't evidence.

My opinion is also that I don't think it's as cut and dried an example of suicide as the 'official line' makes out.

There's a film out now about suicides from the Golden Gate Bridge. Apparently one 'jumper' is seen jogging along the bridge and having a chat on his mobile and then -whoosh! - over the edge he went.

If the camera hadn't captured the actual jump, you could imagine observers conjuring up all sorts of conspiracy theories about what really happened to the bloke ("he seemed fine to me..." "he was jogging by.. why would someone who looks after their body want to kill themselves" etc etc).

Yeah, I heard about that film.

I guess it's the nature of suicide that you can't know what's going on in some people's minds. Some people apparently attempt suicide quite impulsively, whereas others plan, and there's anecdotal evidence to suggest that some people who were going through a difficult patch seemed to friends/relatives/colleagues to have turned the corner. Although in hindsight, their new-found more positive mood seemingly stemmed from having taken the decision.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

The way Kelly was treated was an absolute disgrace from start to finish.

I think we can all agree on that, ed.

 

[Jazzz]

yeah, particularly the finish

 

[skunkboy69]

Lol

 

[Maggot]

Bump. cos the programme's on in a minute.

 

[wee cough ed]

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.

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.

I agree. But I think the UK is already bound by the UN Minnesota Protocol and that giving the Hutton Inquiry terms of reference was a breach of our Minnesota Protocol commitment.

I tried to argue, in a case to European Court of Human Rights, that Coroners Inquests are too restricted to uphold our commitment to protect life (article 2 ECHR). This is because our commitment to protect life can only exist when there is concurrent certainty of effective sudden death inquiry.

The case I was seeking to bring (Deaths with suspicion of government involvement) occurred in 1972 and this was before UK became signatory to Minnesota Protocol. Hence the application to ECHR was ruled inadmissible.

However there seems to have been a High Court ruling now in an inquest appeal legal aid refusal case that the applicants are entitled to legal aid for Inquest appeal because of Article 2 Rights to Life.

I was just writing about this yesterday in the case of the child patient who died in post operative ICU at Guys in 95 when hospital emergency generator failed and power to life support was cut. This is about the argument to extend the public interest duties of inquests (your point). The main thrust of what I am writing is to apply via my MP to the Home Secretary for Police Act and Civil Contingencies Act compulsion of inquiry and action.

There is another MP taking an interest who is fighting a constituent case about backup generator failure at another hospital cutting power to post op life support by which the constituent's child appeared to have sustained severe brain damage.

I reckon to have the report finished in the next fortnight. What happens after that I will wait to see ... I want amendments to HSAW Act and debate about Article 2 and Inquest duties.

If you are interested Detective Boy I can email you with any developments if any developments occur ?

 

[HackneyE9]

I sat through every day of the Hutton inquiry, for my sins, and the discrepencies were:
1. The position of the body agains the tree - flat on ground v propped up
2. The amount of blood.
3. Noticing whether the half full bottle of water was there.
4. Noticing whether Kelly was carrying the water when he was seen for the last time by the neighbour walking the dog.

But that's about it. I'm open minded to the possibility of him being murdered, but what swung it for me was the evidence of his family about the comatose/zombie like depression he was in the last few days.

Of course, if you wanted to be conspiratorial, he could have been depressed at the thought he might be offed...!

 

[newbie]

there's a programme about kelly on BBC4 now.

 

[wee cough ed]

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).

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.

There was a custody death case in Margate 1995 in which blood samples handled by invigilator Supt Rogers shew a massive paracetomol overdose whereas the duplicate sample handled by Coroners Officer Billings shew normal levels.

The research into suicide I think was in USA and included the finding of seritonin abberant levels in 95% of reviewed cases in which suicide was the verdict. Because suicide methods reflect the knowledge and personaility of the deceased this was the preferred explanation for why women attempt suicide four times more often than men but four times as many men die of suicide. Women choose methods which are more susceptibe to medical intervention .. men use violent methods like hanging or shooting. Professional women tend to use male type methods (Dr Isobel Barnett used an electric fire in her bath I think for example).

There was a suicide verdict in Margate 1979 in which a woman doed with a plastic bag over her head with chloroform soaked cotton wool balls in it. In 1996 when HM Coroner learnt that the lady had a phobia of plastic bags she asked Kent Police to re-examine the case. Police refused ... but hey why should they do what a Coroner asks of them.

The guideline seems to be that if there is a phobic method or a method out of character and knowledge ... be suspicious.

 

[detective-boy]

If you are interested Detective Boy I can email you with any developments if any developments occur ?

Thanks for the offer, but I think I've got enough on my plate already. Good luck.

 

[Groucho]

What was the prog like? Any loose ends or interesting Qs, or is it all sown up, case closed?

 

[laptop]

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).

It would.

I've been lobbying for years for all paracetamol-based products to be sold firmly attached to a large stone slab on which are carved the words:

'If you're going to off yourself, for fuck's sake use something else!'

The risk is that you'll be fine for a day, then spend four days in hospital facing inevitable death from liver failure, with the nursing staff trying not to show how bitterly they hate you for lying there beyond their power to do anything.

But... is it actually suggested that Kelly planned that the tablets would kill him, or just dull the pain of the final cut? That leaves us with the suggestion that he made the wrong cut, which would indeed be strange.

 

[editor]

Good program that. I felt for his close friend who lamented the fact that his name might now become forever associated with conspiracy theories instead of being remembered for his brilliant lifetime's work.

 

[wee cough ed]

In the case I mentioned earlier it was suggested that the massive paracetomol overdose was introduced to the one blood sample in four days when it allegedly left the evidence handling chain.

The Thanet HM Coroner stood down in the case and a new Coroner held a complete new inquest process. I don't know if it was established that a blood sample could be doctored to indicate a paracetomol overdose.

As I understand it the blood sample was taken and divided with one sample sent by Coroners Officer to one lab and the other sample handled by invigilator and sent to another lab. Two completely different results came back.

Also, taking the point made earlier that his depressed behaviour in his last few days "swung it" for the contributor, I don't see that his behaviour establishes itself as being a function of his true mental state.

It only establishes that something caused a personality change.

 

[8ball]

A mate of mine suggested he offed himself in a way that looked odd in an act of deliberate revenge against the Government.

 

[laptop]

In the case I mentioned earlier it was suggested that the massive paracetomol overdose was introduced to the one blood sample in four days when it allegedly left the evidence handling chain.

That'd be a bloody stupid way to try to fit up a suicide, since as I noted paracetamol usually takes days to kill. You'd want to drop some heroin into the samples...

 

[8ball]

Well, there WAS codeine in the tablets.

I have no idea of whether that will kill you before the paracetamol, though. Seems unlikely
.

 

[laptop]

Well, there WAS codeine in the tablets.

I have no idea of whether that will kill you before the paracetamol, though. Seems unlikely
.

dextropropoxythene to be exact - a synthetic codeine substitute, I think.

Can't find any lethal dose info - there's just 32mg in each tablet, with 650mg paracetamol.

 

[HackneyE9]

Good program that. I felt for his close friend who lamented the fact that his name might now become forever associated with conspiracy theories instead of being remembered for his brilliant lifetime's work.

Didn't see the programme - but not his friend "Tom Mangold", by any chance? He was involved in the Colin Wallace whistleblower stuff in the 1970s too - he makes a guest appearance in Paul Foot's book about the Wilson smears. So the plot thickens...

As for the previous twenty posts or so, I'm sure the programme refreshed your memories, but Kelly took his wife's co-praxomol to deaden the pain of slitting his wrists, not to kill himself with.

 

[8ball]

Not even proper codeine?

Doubt that would do anyone in.

 

[8ball]

As for the previous twenty posts or so, I'm sure the programme refreshed your memories, but Kelly took his wife's co-praxomol to deaden the pain of slitting his wrists, not to kill himself with.

Yeah, but once the crapness of the wrist wound became apparent the Government tried to exploit the drugs as a 'contributory factor' in cause of death.