David Kelly death not suicide, says Norman Baker MP

[editor]

Well, yes, you said it, simple. The failure of the experts involved to defend themselves on the programme should certainly raise eyebrows..

And how about the willingness of some of the highest qualified and most respected experts in the various related fields to appear on the program and talk at length about their opinions on the subject?

Does that raise your eyebrow too?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

All this lurid speculation seems to me to be helping the government off the hook for hounding the poor guy to death because he questioned their pre-war lies.

I agree that it's not impossible they killed him, but common sense points to the obvious explanation. That they hounded him to suicide for having the temerity to call their lies into question and then appointed a dodgy old judge with security connections going back 30 years to preside over a whitewash.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

..his rather strong connections with the security establishment go back at least to the early 1970's.

Highlights include; The whitewashing of 'Bloody Sunday', defending the UK in 1978 ECoHR 'torture' hearings, overturning Pinochet's extradition and stamping on kittens.

(I may be wrong about the kittens. )

I read the whole thing - it's a crock of shit (for the reasons mentioned plus some others that I won't go into now).

 

[editor]

I agree that it's not impossible they killed him, but common sense points to the obvious explanation.

The real outrage and energy should be directed at making Blair and company take full responsibility for the despicable way Kelly was left out to dry.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Highlights include; The whitewashing of 'Bloody Sunday', defending the UK in 1978 ECoHR 'torture' hearings, overturning Pinochet's extradition and stamping on kittens.<snip>

Well quite.

Did anyone ever explain exactly how Hutton was picked to do the whitewash? Did someone just ask the spooks who their favourite judge was?

 

[William of Walworth]

I for one don't think he was actively murered by the state. Its just too risky to murder prominent professionals, already in the public eye, in the period immediately after he has caused them the problem - especially when there was a clear motive (for both the spooks and the govt). Result would be exactly this: plausible accusations that the govt had killed him. State's have far more effective and less risky ways of marginalising, threateing individuals.

Don't get me wrong - the british state has killed many inconvenient trouble makers - in Ireland and in a range of foreign conflicts. Crucial difference was that there was always another set of death squads or similar to blame it on.

I'd guess he was effectively driven to it by the British state rather than murdered by it. After the journalists first fucked him over the spin doctors and his own managers went for him. As well as the meetings he had with his own bosses, its unimaginable that there were not other pressures put on him - possible threat of prosecution for breach of the official secrets act? threat to sack him and leave him at the mercy of the press?

Don't think its impossible he was killed - but much more likely they simply fucked him up so much he was driven to a point of desparation where there was no alternative in his mind. Still leaves them with a large degree of guilt over his death. Cunts

All this lurid speculation seems to me to be helping the government off the hook for hounding the poor guy to death because he questioned their pre-war lies.

I agree that it's not impossible they killed him, but common sense points to the obvious explanation. That they hounded him to suicide for having the temerity to call their lies into question and then appointed a dodgy old judge with security connections going back 30 years to preside over a whitewash.

Spot on both. Thank fuck for genuine critics/opponents of 'the establishment' who don't conspiricise and who recognise conspiricism for the establisment-assisting distraction that it is.

 

[8ball]

Spot on both. Thank fuck for genuine critics/opponents of 'the establishment' who don't conspiricise and who recognise conspiricism for the establisment-assisting distraction that it is.

Since both sides here only differ on whether Dr Kelly was hounded to his death by this scummy Government, or helped along a little more directly - how exactly is that 'letting them off the hook'?

 

[laptop]

Since both sides here only differ on whether Dr Kelly was hounded to his death by this scummy Government, or helped along a little more directly - how exactly is that 'letting them off the hook'?

Because the louder some people shout that he was killed by holographic ninja aliens, the more attention is distracted from the hounding and the more the government can dismiss all those who wonder how he met his death as fruitloops.

Silly.

 

[8ball]

Because the louder some people shout that he was killed by holographic ninja aliens, the more attention is distracted from the hounding and the more the government can dismiss all those who wonder how he met his death as fruitloops.

Silly.

Nobody believes a word the Government says on anything remotely connected to Iraq - so I don't think this strengthens their position much.

When you have people like MPs and coroners and surgeons raising concerns it's not so easy for the Government to shout 'conspiraloon' - unlike the 9/11 stuff there do seem to be a few real unanswered questions here.

 

[laptop]

When you have people like MPs and coroners and surgeons raising concerns it's not so easy for the Government to shout 'conspiraloon' -

Holding none of the above posts guarantees sanity...

unlike the 9/11 stuff there do seem to be a few real unanswered questions here.

...and I fear that distraction from actual questions by conspiraloons remains probable.

 

[William of Walworth]

When you have people like MPs and coroners and surgeons raising concerns it's not so easy for the Government to shout 'conspiraloon' - unlike the 9/11 stuff there do seem to be a few real unanswered questions here.

Who's denying that? I'm certainly not, neither are 4thwrite, Bernie or laptop either.

'Conspiraloon' is not a word used by the Government -- nothing to do with them. Exasperation with conspiracy theorists is more likely to be expressed by Urbanites pissed off with the way CTers tend to seize on genuinely unanswered questions and wildly overegg the pudding. Thus, in effect, assisting the establishment by -- in Government eyes -- discrediting by association those, like Bernie and 4thwrite and laptop, who want to ask RATIONAL (and difficult) questions ...

Cters get in the way of proper independent research and are a complete pain in the arse ....

 

[lostexpectation]

talking about conspiraloons his american colleague thinks the iraqis did it?


and his friend judith miller???? the biggest propagandist for the war of them alll? why was he friend with her?



and with this and libbey trial it reminds me again and again how much britain was instigating the false evidence trial not just followeing the USA

 

[derf]

I certainly think he was killed.

It well well handy for Billy Blair.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Since both sides here only differ on whether Dr Kelly was hounded to his death by this scummy Government, or helped along a little more directly - how exactly is that 'letting them off the hook'?

As long as both possibilities and that which they have in common are kept clearly in focus, I don't think it is necessarily.

It tends to let them off the hook when inconclusive stuff about Kelly being murdered takes the focus away from the calling Blair, Campbell et. al. to account for clearly bringing about his death, one way or another, as a result of their actions after he spoke out of turn to the BBC about their WMD lies.

That they got a dodgy old judge from Northern Ireland who seems to have spent much of his career whitewashing the lethal mishaps of the security establishment to arrange a whitewash of their actions doesn't change that.

If you're going to challenge Hutton's verdict though, then challenge it all, not just the bits that are hardest to prove one way or another.

 

[detective-boy]

He seemed to know a lot about it!

He also seemed remarkably odd, pointing out which of his phones was the "hotline" ... "Not that Henry Kissinger or someone rings up on it - though that has actually happened ... "

What was his name? Oh yeah, Walter Mitty QC.

 

[detective-boy]

Tremendously sloppy.

So your an expert toxicologist and pathologist now, as well as the worlds leading structural engineer.

What the fuck else do you know better than everyone else? Could you let us know know so that if anything happens which needs your skills we can contact ytou direct instead of pissing about with all the other no-marks.

(Surprised you've got time to post, to be honest. What with you examining those points in Cumbria and everything ...).

Tosser.

 

[detective-boy]

The BBC series starts with the statement that "Where there is secrecy, conspiracy breeds" or something like that.

This is another example of a case of significant public interest where a public examination of the evidence (including cross examination of the witnesses) should have been held and would have allayed many of the concerns raised.

The police, pathologist and forensic scientists involved in the case would not be permitted to talk to a programme like this (where there would be no guarantee at all as to whether their quotes would be taken out of context), so Jazzz's jizzz about that adding to the suspicious (like most of the crap he comes out with) is bollocks. It would actually be odd if they were (unusually) allowed to!

The paramedics were interesting and I'd like to know more about them. They seemed to be saying that there wasn't enough blood at the scene but it is quite difficult to see it in woodland (and it soaks into the ground) and I would be very surprised if they were allowed to do a fingerprint search of the scene which would be necessary to know.

But the cause of death would be my main concern. There are (as usually) different opinions on what it is and it is probably impossible to ever find evidence for sure. The most convincing for me was the guy who (I think) was the President of the Association of Forensic Pathologists who drew the drugs, the cut and the heart disease together and said the three interacting would be a perfectly understandable cause. But I'd like to see them all cross-examined - pathologists are a notorious bombastic lot.

And the attitude of Dr Kelly's wife is also telling - if anyone would know whether or not her husband was capable of taking his own life that day, she would. And it appears she has absolutely no doubt at all. And perhaps the conspiracy theorists should pay heed to the effect their continued allegations are having on her.

 

[editor]

And the attitude of Dr Kelly's wife is also telling - if anyone would know whether or not her husband was capable of taking his own life that day, she would. And it appears she has absolutely no doubt at all. And perhaps the conspiracy theorists should pay heed to the effect their continued allegations are having on her.

Indeed. She knew her husband better than anyone else - better even than Jazzz! - and her strong belief that he took his own life is very compelling.

 

[revol68]

Indeed. She knew her husband better than anyone else - better even than Jazzz! - and her strong belief that he took his own life is very compelling.

OMGZ you sheeple!

His wife was in on it, have you seen the life insurance package he had? Larry O'Hara even saw her shopping for some very expensive chocolates in Asda just 18 months after her husbands death.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

I for one don't think he was actively murered by the state. Its just too risky to murder prominent professionals, already in the public eye, in the period immediately after he has caused them the problem - especially when there was a clear motive (for both the spooks and the govt). Result would be exactly this: plausible accusations that the govt had killed him. State's have far more effective and less risky ways of marginalising, threateing individuals...

I don't think that's a valid argument.

I don't think that any secretive state instrument has been put off assassinating someone on the grounds that the finger would be pointed at them.

What about Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko? There are allegations/rumours flying around that they were hit by the Russian secret service. *If* they were topped by the FSB, the fact that they would come under suspicion would be no barrier to the undertaking.

It's all too easy for the authorities to dismiss any accusations as conspiraloonery. Who are you going to believe? The official suits or some random outsider?

The retort can always be: "prove it!" And you're never going to have that conclusive proof, so it can always be written off as speculation and conspiracy theory.

 

[Wilf]

I don't think that's a valid argument.

I don't think that any secretive state instrument has been put off assassinating someone on the grounds that the finger would be pointed at them.

What about Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko? There are allegations/rumours flying around that they were hit by the Russian secret service. *If* they were topped by the FSB, the fact that they would come under suspicion would be no barrier to the undertaking.

.

I don't have a problem with the notion that states - even nominally democratic states - kill trouble makers. The real questions are Which State? and In Which Circumstances? Its all too plausible that the Russian state/mafia could kill opponents - at home and abroad. The existence of elections does little to disguise that fact that Russia is a centralised autocracy run with links to massive corporatiions and organised crime. It also has a security apparatus with a long history of extrajudicial murder, torture and massive intimidation.

Whilst i detest British capitalism and the British state, it would be dishonest to suggest that British 'liberal democracy' contains exactly the same balance of forces. Increasingly illiberal as it is, with the 'war on terror', Britain still has spaces where people can organise and a relatively free press with a history of investigative journalism. That's not me turning liberal (i hope!) or defending British politics - just a simple statemement of the differences between democracies and autocracies. And its in these circumstances of relative political/press freedom that it would be stupid for politicians/spooks to actively murder an opponent. Not that they are inherently moral or want to stay on the right side of the law - just that they know they will get found out. And anyway, they have far more powerful tools at their disposal to nudge the news agenda in the direction they want.

And on this point:

It's all too easy for the authorities to dismiss any accusations as conspiraloonery. Who are you going to believe? The official suits or some random outsider?

well, yes, they've always got that option - but surely its easier and cleaner for them not to have the problem in the first place - by not murdering opponents.

 

[Jazzz]

And how about the willingness of some of the highest qualified and most respected experts in the various related fields to appear on the program and talk at length about their opinions on the subject?

Does that raise your eyebrow too?

I'm sorry can you give a precis of who they were and what they said? I doubt it.

I remember three guys they found to trot out some crap. And the programme gave them the 'last word' as it were, as if that settled the whole thing - typical of the way this show is biased.

We had one pathologist, who accepted that wounds to ulnar arteries might well be survivable, but then said something like "but when you have a dead body, and there's blood loss, well then the loss of blood must have been fatal" - i.e. an obviously fallacial argument.

Then we had some guy coming on to suggest that the level of co-proxamol was not usually fatal but might have been enough. Better than the last chap but still very much in the same realm.

Then we had a psychiatrist who amazingly considered Kelly's emails that day in which he stated clearly he was looking forward to getting back to Baghdad(!) and attempted to maintain that what they really meant was the exact opposite. I feared for his sanity.

No explanation of how bodies can move by themselves from being slumped against trees of course. No remarking on how it would be unusual for such an ordered man not to leave a suicide note.

"Good God no, I couldn’t imagine ever doing that ... I would never do it." Dr. David Kelly

 

[editor]

I remember three guys they found to trot out some crap.

That'll be three of the most respected authorities in the fields of expertise related to the questions about Kelly's death, yes?

Could you give me your grounds for dismissing their expert opinions please?

And why do you think his family are so absolutely sure that he was depressed enough to kill himself? Or do you know better than them too?

 

[Wilf]

We had one pathologist, who accepted that wounds to ulnar arteries might well be survivable, but then said something like "but when you have a dead body, and there's blood loss, well then the loss of blood must have been fatal" - i.e. an obviously fallacial argument.

I do agree with you on that point - it was simply not a logical statement. It only made sense if you absolutely knew that there had been no outside interference and that, therefore, he must have died of blood loss. Only if you 100% knew blood loss was the only cause of death could you say that this must have been a sufficient amount of blood. But whether there had been outside interference was the very point of the programme - so this was a ridiculous thing to say as apparent evidence that there hadn't been outside interference.

[though i still don't think it was murder]

 

[Larry O'Hara]

OMGZ you sheeple!

His wife was in on it, have you seen the life insurance package he had? Larry O'Hara even saw her shopping for some very expensive chocolates in Asda just 18 months after her husbands death.

a positive suggestion, you trolling little toss-pot. Go to the top of any tall building--and throw yourself off. Why should I have to put up with scum like you abusing me?

 

[DrRingDing]

It is very perculiar that he didn't leave a note.

Infact there is a lot about this case which is very strange.

 

[Lock&Light]

It is very perculiar that he didn't leave a note.

A great many suicides leave no notes.

 

[editor]

It is very perculiar that he didn't leave a note.

There's nothing even slightly "peculiar" about that.

 

[Kaka Tim]

I thought the programme was pretty inconclusive and that its hard to say with any certainty what the truth is.

However, the possibilty that he was murdered is credible enough to given serious consideration. The investigation into his death singularly failed to do this at any point - which, given Huttons track record in northern ireland and that the most obvious suspect was the security services , is not surprising.

I thought the notion that it was Iraqi security services pretty laugable and the bloke with the 'hotline to the CIA' was clearly a self publicising nob-head.

The State (whichever branch) did have a potential motive for murdreing him (one which the programme refrained from pointing out). It is quite possible that Kelly had the potential to seriously drop the government in the shit. Up until then he had just given 'off record' hints to hacks that the giovernment had lied, if he'd have gone on the record, with even more damaging facts, it might have brought Blair down. The way he had been treated by the MOD and the whitehall certainly gave him a serious grudge.

It may be that after hauling over the coals and gerreally treating him like shit, the Spooks realised he was abou to spill the beans and hastily dispatched him. I really don't think thats 'conspiraloon nonsense', I think it within the bounds of reasonable possibility and should be seriously investigated . They had means, motive and opportunity. The only sticking point is the lack of a credible historical precedent for the security services assinating someone in such circumstances - althogh they have done it abroad and in Ireland through proxys (i.e local armed groups like the loyalists gangs or the use of a militant islamist group to try and off Gadaffi).

I'm certainly not ruling out suicide. His wife - the person best qulaified to judge his state of mind (as opposed to the rent-a-diagnosis shrink they wheeled out) - believes he took his own life.

This probably balances the factors arguing agasint - the unsual method (its very difficult and very painful to hack through the main artery in your wrist - especially with a pocket knife) , the e-mails about 'dark actors', the lack of blood etc.

Open verdict. The government has his blood on its hands either way.

(unless it wasn;t security servcies but Alastair Campbell's 'extreme news management group' - who offed John Smith, Princess Diana and Robin Cook as well - dont say it was me who told you)

 

[sus]

This enables those, like the Last Century Left, who want to sweep all parapolitical analysis under the carpet 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.

I remember seeing Blair during prime minister's questions a month or two before Iraq was invaded using this method when someone from his own back benches alluded to the PNAC. Dirty fucker.

Has the stated manifesto of the PNAC ever been discussed in the commons insofar as it relates to the invasion of Iraq? I've never heard anything