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

[Jazzz]

Well for me strong evidence that he was murdered was that he was found dead, there was no blood around consistent with the theory that he'd bled to death, nor was his wrist wound consistent with it, he had a known strong aversion to swallowing tablets, his last known words were "see you again then, Ruth" to a passer-by, etc etc

That and other details such as the fact that it is rather difficult for a dead man to move himself from being propped up against a tree.

But anyway it seems we very much agree on the course that must be taken so I wonder why the quarrel.

 

[bluestreak]

The quarrel is not over the things we agree about innit!

 

[detective-boy]

Well for me strong evidence that he was murdered was that he was found dead, there was no blood around consistent with the theory that he'd bled to death, nor was his wrist wound consistent with it, he had a known strong aversion to swallowing tablets, his last known words were "see you again then, Ruth" to a passer-by, etc etc.

None of which is ... er ... "evidence" of murder, let alone strong evidence of murder.

 

[editor]

his last known words were "see you again then, Ruth" to a passer-by, etc etc.

Oh for fuck's sake. Have you any idea how utterly ridiculous that piece of 'evidence' is?

No? Well, here's a clue for you:

"I am just going outside and may be some time."

 

[belboid]

But anyway it seems we very much agree on the course that must be taken so I wonder why the quarrel.

possibly because your heading for this thread has no connection whatsoever with the contents, and is simply another idiotic story designed to distract attention from what ever the 'truth' maybe.

I trust you were paid well to make it so.

 

[chilango]

The use of language is also interesting here. The chosen wording of the title in the oP adds an element of pulp fictionalisation to the whole thing, rendering the whole theory less credible to the reader.

why?

 

[Jazzz]

None of which is ... er ... "evidence" of murder, let alone strong evidence of murder.

er, he was dead, in obviously extraordinary circumstances, and didn't commit suicide.

It's well to follow Sherlock Holmes' maxim - you should know that one DB. "When you eliminate the impossible, what remains must be the truth"

 

[Citizen66]

"When you eliminate the impossible, what remains must be the truth"

If you search that on google it doesn't come up with Homes, strangely enough, It comes up with Jazzz

 

[Jazzz]

The quarrel is not over the things we agree about innit!

well here's a parallel - Roberto Calvi. Our very own police investigation and inquest determined that he, too, committed suicide, in similarly absurd circumstances.

How did campaigners manage to draw attention to the problem? I can tell you - it wasn't by going 'well we aren't sure of the whole truth here maybe it's a bit dodgy maybe someone should have a look at it again sometime'. It was by going 'this is a heap of shit, there's all kind of weird masonic vatican connections going on'. i.e., the kind of approach that many would deride as 'conspiracy theory' at the time, except that when the truth is out no-one thinks of it as conspiracy stuff anymore, it's just obvious.

 

[Jazzz]

If you search that on google it doesn't come up with Homes, strangely enough, It comes up with Jazzz

I think you need to check your googling

 

[editor]

er, he was dead, in obviously extraordinary circumstances, and didn't commit suicide.

It's well to follow Sherlock Holmes' maxim - you should know that one DB. "When you eliminate the impossible, what remains must be the truth"

Your hypocrisy has just blown over the LOL-gates.

 

[Soul On Ice]

er, he was dead, in obviously extraordinary circumstances, and didn't commit suicide.

It's well to follow Sherlock Holmes' maxim - you should know that one DB. "When you eliminate the impossible, what remains must be the truth"

I think we should revise Holmes' statement and attribute one to Jazzz. I would suggest.

"Eliminate the the possible and probable with a sweeping dismissive gesture, and whatever errant evidence free nonsense exists must therefore be the truth"

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I have eliminated all other factors and have come to the conclusion that Jazzz must be the crazed assassin because he knows too much about all this....I think he was in on the twin towers job too

 

[denniseagle]

I reckon the yanks have landed on the moon

Soon find out if they did when the Chinese probe starts mapping the moon next year.
That's if it doesn't 'malfunction' first

 

[Jazzz]

It's amazing.

For you guys to believe that he committed suicide, you don't even need an established cause of death and seem are happy to believe that dead men can unprop themselves from trees.

And you think I'm the crazy one for simply seeing the blindingly obvious.

Buffoons!

 

[belboid]

yes, because disagreeing with your totally unsubstantiated fantasies equates to believing everything the government tells us, doesn't it Mr Mossad?

 

[London_Calling]

I read the whole thing last night and I cannot agree that it is well-researched and argued. It is simply speculation and wild theorising with not one shred of evidence to back up any of the claims made.

I think it's researched, I just think it feels too much like the author is looking to exaggerate his angle on the affair at the cost of counter-arguments.

I tend to think that writing a book for money, selling the rights to a newspaper etc as opposed to compiling and taking any supposed 'evidence' to the OB or CPS and asking them to look at it, or perhaps simply by releasing said 'evidence' into the public domain and not making any money from it would enhance the credibility of what's being said.

But like so many 'conspiracy' evidence, it's being used to pull in the punters and the filthy lucre...

You assume an independence of action by the relevant authorities. By definition (assuming the author's position), that wouldn't be the case.




Otherwise, there is just so much emphasis on personal attacks and abuse in this thread, it serves as all the explanation anyone might need for why the politics forums on this site are next to pointless.

Where's the moderation ?

 

[Descartes]

Tee Hee, it's nice to see so many open minds, debating the logical and known sequence of events.
The three cases quoted by the MP, the assassinations in London, all recorded, agreed and substantiated by evidence.

Clearly, the murder of individuals by organised 'hit man or men or even women' does take place.

Why is it so difficult to even consider the possibility that other cases have taken place?
The question arises, if three have taken place that we are aware of, how many have taken place that we are unaware of?
Or, Are we to consider that only foreign Governments would stooped to such things?

Is it naive to refuse to consider any other options of Dr Kelly's death?

 

[editor]

Tee Hee, it's nice to see so many open minds, debating the logical and known sequence of events.
The three cases quoted by the MP, the assassinations in London, all recorded, agreed and substantiated by evidence.

And all utterly irrelevant to this case.

Or do you think the evidence from those totally unrelated cases somehow 'carries over' into Kelly's death?

 

[editor]

Otherwise, there is just so much emphasis on personal attacks and abuse in this thread....

You mean like Jazzz just declaring anyone who disagrees with his evidence-unsupported conspiracy claims a "buffoon""?

Where's the moderation ?

Do you want him banned or something then?

 

[jonH]

we could just have him knocked off, ring up Gordon and he'll send the boys around. Or is Tony the man to ask still?.............yes Tony's ya man

 

[London_Calling]

And all utterly irrelevant to this case.

Or do you think the evidence from those totally unrelated cases somehow 'carries over' into Kelly's death?

They factually establish that politically motivated murder is alive and well.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

They factually establish that politically motivated murder is alive and well.

Goodness! Really? I never knew that! You mean - governments are known to kill people? Why did I never hear of this before? You could knock me down with a feather. Etc etc etc.

 

[London_Calling]

You mean like Jazzz just declaring anyone who disagrees with his evidence-unsupported conspiracy claims a "buffoon""?
Do you want him banned or something then?

You're in a pub, you argue and banter like it's a pub. You're in a debating forum . . . diff environment, diff standards of decorum. Imo.

 

[editor]

They factually establish that politically motivated murder is alive and well.

Again, totally and utterly irrelevant to this case. It proves nothing.

So have you got any actual evidence relevent to this case to produce here, or are you going to keep on pointlessly bringing up random, unrelated cases of murder from decades ago?

 

[London_Calling]

No ones talking about "proof" at this stage. If there was such a thing it would be a court case already.

These things tend to need public-drive campaigns to test the veracity of the claims, because there sure as hell is no motivation coming from the establishment.

 

[London_Calling]

Just to take that a bit further. As an exmaple, the CPS doesn't only prosecute cases with "proof", they look to establish if there is a case to answer. If there is, they put it in front of a judge and jury.

'Proof' is ultimately determined by the jury.

 

[editor]

No ones talking about "proof" at this stage. If there was such a thing it would be a court case already.

But you understand that trying to link and associate completely unrelated murders to the Kelly case is an utterly pointless exercise and smacks of the laughably unscientific and shoddy tactics so beloved of conspiraloons?

 

[London_Calling]

I can only repeat post #142.

Murders the authorities deemed suicide that were later determined to not be suicide but political murders, no thanks to the authorities - that point establishes the realpolitik context, and counters sceptics who think this is England and we don't do things like that here - of whom the architypical Daily Mail reader might be one. It was a good place to publish the article.

And fwiw, I'm not overly interested in poster jazzz, but I am in the former MP who is making the claims.

 

[editor]

Murders the authorities deemed suicide that were later determined to not be suicide but political murders, no thanks to the authorities -

You can repeat it all you like, but it still remains utterly irrelevant to the Kelly case.

The way you keep clinging on to these wholly unrelated stories would make some people think that you're mind's already made up that Kelly was murdered, despite the complete absence of any credible supporting evidence!

But seeing as you keep trotting it out, could you tell me the last 'politically motivated' murder carried out on UK soil by the government please?