"Did two hired assassins snatch weapons inspector David Kelly?"

[8den]

With the utmost respect, the staement Dr. Kelly's widow made a public statement that said she was satisfied that her husband death was a suicide.


Clearly describes Dr Kelly's widow making a public statement, to say this is a terminological inexactitude and as such, did not happen.

To display a sense of exasperation over a blatantly incorrect statement and then resort to vernacular of the street in an attempt to gain some sort of credibility is total folly on your part.

You complete failure to comprehend that the judgement on Lord Hutton's part was the decision of One) A human being and as such open to all the normal fragilities Two) The understanding and contemplation was only on the evidence presented.

We have had the details of how this type of inquiry should and can be controlled by the Judge. If the list of evidence does not include or detail further evidence, if his staff are not aware or fail to fully comply with the brief for the inquiry... the list goes on but to believe that such findings are completely and utterly without failing or reach a decision that should not and cannot be challenged is on a par in possible belief in adult fairy tales. i.e., the easter bunny, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy etc.

You choose to ignore the ongoing investigation by the specialist who still challenge the evidence and the decision by Lord Hutton, your cry for facts but you ignore various web sites but are only too quick to quote from any and all documents to suit yourself.

never in the history of semantics has so little held on the demented point of so few.

Do you think if the QC misrepresented the feelings of the wife of Doctor Kelly she would have let it lie?

You've nothing, fuck all, squat, and diddly.

Make your case cite your evidence or fuck off.

 

[DrRingDing]

Have you any evidence that Mrs Kelly's public statement misrepresents her opinion about the circumstances surrounding her husband's death in any way at all - YES/NO?

Have you got any evidence that those filtered words presented by her lawyer are the true representation of her inner thoughts?

 

[editor]

Have you got any evidence that those filtered words presented by her lawyer are the true representation of her inner thoughts?

If you're accusing her of publicly lying through her legal representative on behalf of both her and his bereaved family, you'd best be able to back it up with something substantial.

So, what have you got, sunshine?

Anything?

 

[DrRingDing]

If you're accusing her of publicly lying through her legal representative on behalf of both her and his bereaved family, you'd best be able to back it up with something substantial.

So, what have you got, sunshine?

Anything?

Have you got any proof 'sunshine' (what are you my PE teacher?) that this short statement is a full and true representation of her inner thoughts?

 

[editor]

Have you got any proof 'sunshine' (what are you my PE teacher?) that this short statement is a full and true representation of her inner thoughts?

You're the one accusing her of not being truthful, so let's hear your proof.

 

[DrRingDing]

You're the one accusing her of lying, so let's hear your proof.

No, you are the one using this public statement as your strongest evidence to claim DK's death was suicide. You are making the claim, so YOU have to back it up.

 

[editor]

No, you are the one using this public statement as your strongest evidence to claim DK's death was suicide. You are making the claim, so YOU have to back it up.

No. Mrs Kelly is 'making the claim' and she has made a very public statement on the matter and repeated it in subsequent interviews.

Seeing as I can see no credible reason why she should lie to the public over the death of her husband, I'm quite prepared to take her carefully prepared legal statement as being truthful.

So have you any evidence at all that she is a liar or are you just making up this nasty, offensive allegation without a single fact to support it?

Time to show up or shut up because it's simply not on to accuse someone of lying without any proof.

 

[DrRingDing]

You are using, as your strongest evidence, as defence of the realm, hearsay.

This would be laughed out of court. You would definately lose.

 

[DrRingDing]

So have you any evidence at all that she is a liar or are you just making up this nasty, offensive allegation without a single fact to support it?

You can use as much faux Daily Mailian outrage as you like but it will never cover up the fact that this evidence is hearsay.

 

[editor]

You are using, as your strongest evidence, as defence of the realm, hearsay.

This would be laughed out of court. You would definately lose.

LOL.

So, again, have you any evidence at all that Mrs Kelly is a liar or are you just making up this nasty, offensive allegation without a single fact to support it?

 

[fela fan]

Dr's question to editor: "Have you got any evidence that those filtered words presented by her lawyer are the true representation of her inner thoughts?"

If you're accusing her of publicly lying through her legal representative on behalf of both her and his bereaved family, you'd best be able to back it up with something substantial.

Summarised: Dr asks for evidence, editor strongly implies the Dr is accusing the woman of lying.

Fuck me down, how on earth can the editor go from a to e so blatantly missing b,c,d???? Was he even reading the Dr's question??

 

[fela fan]

LOL.

So, again, have you any evidence at all that Mrs Kelly is a liar or are you just making up this nasty, offensive allegation without a single fact to support it?

I don't know she was lying, you don't know she was telling the truth. Firstly we only heard what we think she had to say via a lawyer. Secondly we don't know because we are not her.

Now, you never lied in your life editor? For you seem to be talking about being a liar as if it's heresy or treason. We all lie, and often for very good reason.

Face it, you really do not know what you're talking about here, all you have are some lawyer's words that we are told came from kelly's wife's mouth. That's all yer got man, so recognise it.

 

[DrRingDing]

Our editor is a bad loser.

Hearsay is not credible evidence.

 

[DrRingDing]

Editor is a self confessed blagger.

Would you not tell a white lie to protect your family?

 

[editor]

Dr's question to editor: "Have you got any evidence that those filtered words presented by her lawyer are the true representation of her inner thoughts?"

Her statement is either the truth or it is not. It's that simple.

 

[editor]

Editor is a self confessed blagger.

Stick to the topic please.

 

[DrRingDing]

Her statement is either the truth or it is not. It's that simple.

Not it isn't and you know that.

Stop being dishonest to try and claw back some credibility.

 

[DrRingDing]

Stick to the topic please.

Would you tell a white lie to protect your family from extremely unpleasant intrusions?

 

[DrRingDing]

Would you tell a white lie to protect your family from extremely unpleasant intrusions?

Think about this.

I'm off to watch some family guy.

Toodle pip.

 

[editor]

Unless you have any credible proof that she lied in her pubic statement, you have nothing but groundless accusations - the sort of empty, agenda-driven groundless accusations that could get your arses sued, if Mrs Kelly could be bothered with people like you.

Unless you can produce some credible proof that Mrs Kelly lied in her public statement (and subsequent media interviews) I strongly recommend you stop repeating these slurs on her character here.

 

[editor]

Would you tell a white lie to protect your family from extremely unpleasant intrusions?

Who's told a 'white lie' here?

Or are you really suggesting that lying about how your husband died and covering up a murder - and then lying about it to your own daughters - is nothing more than a "white lie"?!

 

[Descartes]

Wriggling, sir, I would ask you to confirm that Mrs Kelly was, indeed, the author of the statement read to the court by the QC on behalf of the Kelly Family.

The ball is in your court, you claim to know so much and decline to accept any alternative view. Considering it was you that introduced this the comment that the QC had read the document into the court proceedings. Please, substaniate your comments and not hide behind accusations to other people.





Can you also, as you are so familiar with the case, comment why the evidence of the photographs did not recieve any publicity? Were copies made available to the press? Possibly you could post them?

 

[detective-boy]

That was the anti-Jaed posting.

You've got nephews ...

 

[detective-boy]

You are using, as your strongest evidence, as defence of the realm, hearsay.

It's not hearsay. Hearsay is the statement of someone else about what the principal said - it would be hearsay if editor said "Mrs Kelly has told me that she has no concerns ...". What we have here is a direct statement from the principal (albeit one delivered via her counsel). That is not hearsay - it is direct evidence. As such it is entitled to be taken at face value and anyone wishing to challenge it (that's you and those like you) bear the evidential burden of producing evidence to support your argument.

(And, in a no-doubt doomed effort to educate you further, hearsay is perfectly acceptable as evidence in civil proceedings (and inquests) and always has been (though it is treated with some caution). And it is increasingly admissible in criminal proceedings, too.)

 

[editor]

Wriggling, sir, I would ask you to confirm that Mrs Kelly was, indeed, the author of the statement read to the court by the QC on behalf of the Kelly Family.

Let's get it straight. You're suggesting that the QC made it all up and is bare faced liar?!!! I hope you have some powerful evidence to back this up otherwise you're knee-deep in defamatory territory.

Seeing as Mrs Kelly has confirmed her thoughts directly elsewhere perhaps you might finally offer some compelling evidence as to why she or her QC were lying:

“He had a broken heart. He had shrunk into himself”. Mrs Kelly told the Hutton Inquiry. She hasn’t spoken to this programme but she told Rowena Thursby she has no doubts that her husband took his own life. Rowena Thursby: I spoke to Mrs Kelly on the phone. And, and she felt that her husband had in fact, committed suicide. But that, that was her strong belief.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/if/transcripts/david_kelly.txt

 

[Augie March]

Apologies for the interruption to the thread, but I think now would be a rather good time to post this xkcd cartoon...

That is all.

 

[8den]

Okay we have three assertions here.

One Mrs Kelly's QC read out a statement that she was satisfied her husband's death was suicide. The people who support this believe her QC is telling the truth, and she is happy with his statement.

Two Mrs Kelly's QC read out a statement that she was satisfied her husband's death was suicide. However this isn't true, she's not satisfied and for some reason, perhaps she's not interested or is being threatened she has never clarified her true position. In which case her QC is liar, and she is indifferent to the actual cause of her husband's death, or too terrified to speak out?

Three Mrs Kelly's QC read out a statement that she was satisfied her husband's death was suicide. This statement is not a true feeling of her opinion, and she lied to her QC.

So DrRingDing, and Fela, is she a liar or a coward. Or honest. Alternatively you could track her down and ask her, like morbid conspiracy obsessed ghouls, picking apart her most painful memory, instead of making vile insinuations.

Or you could shut the fuck up. Either is good, really.

 

[fela fan]

Who's told a 'white lie' here?

Or are you really suggesting that lying about how your husband died and covering up a murder - and then lying about it to your own daughters - is nothing more than a "white lie"?!

Y'see, this is where you twist things, so surreptitiously i'm not sure you even realise you're doing it.

What's this sudden addition you've included out of the blue, "and then lying about it to your own daughters"???

If she allowed a public statement to be released, then that is her statement to the public. Are you now suggesting that she only speaks to her daughters via public statements through her QC?? Because that is the only possible interpretation of what you said here.

Yer an eel mate, a bloody slippery one too.

 

[fela fan]

Her statement is either the truth or it is not. It's that simple.

Yeah, of course, life is so simple, especially when lawyers are part of the equation. You sound like george bush 'either you're with us, or you're not', and nothing at all is possible in the middle.

Wow, such naivety you display editor. You've succumbed to 21st century yankee bush rhetoric.

 

[8den]

Yeah, of course, life is so simple, especially when lawyers are part of the equation. You sound like george bush 'either you're with us, or you're not', and nothing at all is possible in the middle.

Wow, such naivety you display editor. You've succumbed to 21st century yankee bush rhetoric.

Oh do piss off, it's pretty bloody simply either you believe the statement that she accepts her husband's death was suicide, or you don't.

Strawmen arguments about George Bush and Lawyers is fucking absurd.

Do you think the statement from her solicitor is true or false fucknuts?