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

[Descartes]

Thing is you haven't got a shred of proof that Kelly was murdered, but that doesn't stop your mind being closed tight on the subject.

No, if you care to explain further than, no shred of evidence, the inquest, the . etc... just explain the details of your belief that all is as you care to believe and I will, with an open mind, interact with an exchange of information and, hopefully, consideration on both sides.

There yer go, 15- love your serve.

 

[editor]

There yer go, 15- love your serve.

I'm going on the facts. I've yet to see anything that supports the claim that he was murdered by these presimably invisible operatives. The fact that his wife is satisfied that he took his own life is also very significant.

Now, have you any evidence to support the case that he was murdered, or not?

I'm not going to play fucking internet tennis over this by the way. If you have no actual evidence only your 'belief' to go on, there's no point arguing this any further.

 

[detective-boy]

...you could just as easily argue that these trace-free "two hired assassins" killed him. After all, I can't prove it didn't happen.

Mistake! Big mistake!! (They'll be using this as proof that these two have previous ...)

 

[detective-boy]

you really must learn to live with the fact there are some things we simply cannot know.

The simple answer to that is, WHY

Er, because there simply isn't the evidence there to allow anyone to come up with a definitive conclusion after the fact.

There is a body lying at the foot of a tall building. They were genuinely working on the roof, with one colleague. The building is so tall it is not overlooked. The issue is did they fall or were they pushed? Only two people know - one is dead and the other one (if the answer is pushed) did it. The ONLY contact necessary would be the hand of the "suspect" with the body of the "victim" ... but what trace would be left? None that would be findable or, even if it were, that would prove guilty contact (the contact could have been quite innocent as they went up in the lift together or something). It wouldn't need such force as to leave a bruise or other mark. There probably wouldn't be any, and certainly not many, clothing fibres on the "suspects" hand. And there'd be no way of finding any of the "suspects" DNA (skin cells) on the "victims" clothing without knowing where to look (you may well get a general DNA profile from the clothing or body as a whole but that could be innocently explained.

That is a particular example. But there is simply no way of knowing lots of things in the real world. Live with it.

 

[Descartes]

I love the 'or some thing'

The difference is beyond reasonable doubt or in all probability, as you have taken care to point out that the Inquest relys on the dictum of ' In all probability'

The example would be cast aside by ' The Editor' as having no relevance to the case of ' Kelly' , murder or suicide, why is it you can quote hypothetical issue but ... any deviation from the Kelly inquest is cas5t aside as irrelevant?

As you are more than aware, any decision in law and by the courts is reliant on the evidence produced and the persuasive argument presented by the learned counsel, the lip service paid to the supposed Justice of the decision of the courts has little or no relevance to the actual circumstances and reality of the incident.

How many of the ' guilty' accused have walked becasue of the termity of the individuals making the decisions in the name of justice. The most awesome and logic defying element is that we are conditioned to believe Justice is blind and all righteous in its judgement.

History clearly shows that expert witnesses are fallable, evidence can be manipulated and wtnesses acan be pressured into making mistakes.

The iquest made its decision on the basis of' ' in all probability', in that the evidence submitted indicated that in all probalitity the case was of suicide. But, that is not a conclusive and finite decision and subject to a different submission of evidence could be over turned.

This is the tenet of the argument, why must we not question that decision?
We live in a ' free and open society' , why shouldn't we question, legitimately, the judgement of the Inquest.
The methods and collection of evidence, the legal process, the witness statements, the scene of teh ' incident', the history of the indivdual, the ongoing and incomplete investigation by the deceased, the responsibility and ongoing reports made by the deseaced all contibute to and judgement made with a greater knowledge at hand.

 

[London_Calling]

I'm going on the facts.

Aren't you actually accepting the official interpretation of events ? A series of facts - 'the body was in this position', 'the person had been missing for this long' - can bear any number of interpretations.

What's being questioned by some here is the official interpretation, that interpretation perhaps being based in part on non-consideration of other facts that don't sit comfortably with the official view.

 

[DrRingDing]

The fact that his wife is satisfied that he took his own life is also very significant.

You don't know that, do you?

 

[fela fan]

Errrrr, it's rather relevant to the thread seeing as some are claiming that Kelly's death was, err, a politically motivated murder carried out on UK soil by the government.

Any death of an employee of the state will be politically motivated.

Kelly's death was on UK soil, yes. But the most likely cause of his death was via american agents of the state, not the UK ones.

 

[fela fan]

That argument has already been presented.

Thing is you haven't got a shred of proof that Kelly was murdered, but that doesn't stop your mind being closed tight on the subject.

Even in the total absence of any credible evidence to support your claims of murder, you're convinced you know the 'troof' and you're not interested in anything else.

How fucking

YOU, editor, haven't got 'a shred of proof' that Kelly killed himself, but that doesn't stop your mind being closed tight on the subject.

Even in the total absence of any credible evidence to support your claims of suicide, you're convinced you know the 'troof' and you're not interested in anything else.

Go on, enlighten the forum as to why you speculate that it was suicide more than murder. Go on, tell us why suicide is more likely than murder. Coz one thing's for sure, you ain't got no fucking evidence or proof.

 

[fela fan]

I'm going on the facts. I've yet to see anything that supports the claim that he was murdered by these presimably invisible operatives. The fact that his wife is satisfied that he took his own life is also very significant.

Now, have you any evidence to support the case that he was murdered, or not?

Look everybody, editor's got the facts!!!! Evidence, truth, proof, facts are all in editor's possession. No wonder he's so sure about kelly killing himself.

And of course, one of those facts is that kelly's wife is saying kelly killed himself. I don't suppose it occurred to the editor that she might not have the energy to take on the whole state apparatus of the UK and US governments?

Why are you asking descartes if he's got any evidence of murder? Why not just let the forum know all your facts that make you say it was suicide, then that's the end of all arguments. After all, we can't argue with facts now can we?

 

[fela fan]

You don't know that, do you?

Yes he does, HE'S GOT THE FACTS.

 

[editor]

You don't know that, do you?

Unless you have some evidence that the family's representative, Jeremy Gompertz QC, is a liar, I see no reason to doubt this statement.

During a 15-minute hearing, Jeremy Gompertz QC, who represented the family at Lord Hutton's inquiry, told the court that Dr Kelly's widow and children were satisfied with the finding that he took his own life but had hoped for more consideration of his state of mind at the time of his death.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,,1170423,00.html

Pwned again!

 

[editor]

And of course, one of those facts is that kelly's wife is saying kelly killed himself. I don't suppose it occurred to the editor that she might not have the energy to take on the whole state apparatus of the UK and US governments?

Classic conspiraloon fact-free projection.

How dare you project your fucking bullshit on the poor woman.

 

[DrRingDing]

Unless you have some evidence that the family's representative, Jeremy Gompertz QC, is a liar, I see no reason to doubt this statement.Pwned again!

You don't know what's really going on in her mind from a formal public statement.

 

[DrRingDing]

Yes he does, HE'S GOT THE FACTS.

I stand corrected

 

[editor]

You don't know what's really going on in her mind from a formal public statement.

She's made her public statement and I imagine it's something she thought about very, very carefully considering her deep personal involvement and the vast public interest in the case.

How dare you suggest that she wasn't entirely honest in her statement just because it doesn't happen to fit with your opinion.

 

[DrRingDing]

She's made her public statement and I imagine it's something she thought about very, very carefully considering her deep personal involvement and the vast public interest in the case.

She obviously did think very carefully about what was the best thing to make public.

Just admit you don't really know what she actually thinks.

 

[editor]

She obviously did think very carefully about what was the best thing to make public.

Just admit you don't really know what she actually thinks.

She has articulated her thoughts via a statement delivered by her legal representative.

If you have any credible reason to claim that the public statement made on behalf of Mrs Kelly and her children by Jeremy Gompertz QC was in any way untrue or dishonest, please state it here.

 

[DrRingDing]

She has articulated her thoughts via a statement delivered by her legal representative.

Can you provide credible evidence that the statement was a carbon copy of her private thoughts on this matter?

 

[DrRingDing]

I do believe the editor has been Pwned.

 

[fela fan]

Classic conspiraloon fact-free projection.

How dare you project your fucking bullshit on the poor woman.

Why, would that be just the sole prerogative of yourself? For that is exactly what you've done. Or can't you even see this?

And in any case, what i've said is nothing to do with 'conspiraloon' or 'fucking bullshit'. Oh no, it's common sense that i've written about. What would she have to gain exactly by coming out in public and accusing the british or american government of killing her husband? This is hardly conspiraloon, it is common sense to wonder this.

She may or may not think privately what she said publicly, but how you seem to have gained special knowledge of her is yet to be shown with any evidence by yourself. So, can you give us proof or facts or evidence that what she said in public is what she thinks in the privacy of her own home.

After all, you claimed you have the facts.

 

[fela fan]

She has articulated her thoughts via a statement delivered by her legal representative.

If you have any credible reason to claim that the public statement made on behalf of Mrs Kelly and her children by Jeremy Gompertz QC was in any way untrue or dishonest, please state it here.

It's really so so simple editor. Perhaps you have rather a rosy view of british special services and state actions?

Assuming that kelly was bumped off, then it would make good sense to ensure his wife does not cause any problems for the state. A quick word in her ear that her children's lives are at risk if she speaks out, and hey presto!

Now before you start spluttering about how dare i, you asked for a credible reason, and i've just given you one.

I totally expect you to reject it, since it does not fit in with your closed mind on the subject.

 

[Descartes]

Don't yer just love it

She has articulated her thoughts via a statement delivered by her legal representative.

And, written by her legal representative....

Have you ever taken legal advice and the solicitor asks, would you like me to write that and we can avoid any mis interpretation,

Or

If you draft something out and I'll glance at it to ensure every one is happy.

and the reply

Oh, would you, that would be very nice.


Sits at table with the family, ( minus her husband , of course ) and tells them the QC ... hang on, why did she need a QC?...... isn't this the same guy that works for the MoD....... Oh no, not anoither conspiracy

Just pass me those blinkers, Oh the Editor is using them.... never mind I'll just get some dark glasses.

Why is every thing accepted as though it's written in stone.

The family will have been advised as to the possible course of action open to them, with all the publicity and the focus of attention.. what would you do, risk the pension? settle for the golden handshake?

Let's just have a look at her bank statements, how well off is Mrs Kelly?, could she afford a long and costly legal battle?
Have the suits moved in and offered the advice that at this stage of her life wouldn't it be better for all, her husband mermory, the peace of your own retirement, the well fare of the family and this lump sum to .......... maintain an almost regal silence..

Or the pragmatic approach, well, it won't bring him back and let's move on with life.

Now, if you can answer those questions and ask Mrs Kelly, that now, without reservation, her opinion on the matter and put to rest the whole matter.

But, hang on, leading up to the death of Mr Kelly, weren't the Government , the Prime Minister and the Heads of Intelligence all lying. not just quietly in some back room lying but blantantly, in the House of Commons, ( is nothing sacred ) at various public meeting, both with and to the press, in the presence of assorted foreign dignitaries, now, if we consider the tenet of the Inquest court, in all probability, the Goverment continued to lie, C'mon, they are not going to break habits of a life time over one, singular wayward Doctor who is not singing from the same hymn book.

The Hutton inquiry was and still is considered a white wash, the parameters of the inquiry restricted Lord Hutton and his 'team' to inconsequential trivia.

Another fact to tuck away some where, this type of inquiry has never 'found' against the government.

So, the Hutton thingie was a political exercise to placate the nosey, the Editor and the easily pleased. How easy for the Blair regime to just point at Lord Hutton and state .. well, we had an inquiry, old boy. How about, checking to see what promotions the civil servants involved got?

As the Military expression goes, All done and Dusted, Sir, and moves smartly to attention and a snappy salute.... Good man.

But, one day.

 

[London_Calling]

Editor and co seem to look upon one interpretation of events - the official one - as the definitive one, and that to challenge that you need "facts " and proof".

In itself that is an absurdist argument; there is no such thing as a single interpretation of any event and the surrounding facts can be interpreted to support a range of outcomes.

People can argue 'most likely' or 'probable or 'possible' - in civil cases ther UK Courts settle for 'on the balance of probability' - but no legal system anywhere accepts one interpretation of events as 100% "proof" or "fact" because it's an impossibly high standard to meet and no one would ever be found guilty.

It's a nonsense position to adopt.

 

[jonH]

It's a nonsense position to adopt.

everyone seems to like that one these days, it's easy

 

[detective-boy]

As you are more than aware, any decision in law and by the courts is reliant on the evidence produced and the persuasive argument presented by the learned counsel,

And, as you are patently not aware, there is no counsel arguing for anything at an inquest. The coroner, an independent judicial figure, a royal appointment and of a seniority which outranks all other Courts of first instance, directs enquiries, orders more if necessary, gathers all the evidence and decides on which to call in a "live" inquest. They may have a counsel for them, and interested parties may be represented (but usually there are neither). But there is no counsel for the State arguing for any particular verdict. (I appreciate that the Kelly inquest was anything but a "normal" one and I do believe that that was a mistake ... but it doesn't mean that I agree there is any evidence whatsoever of murder or cover-up)

This is the tenet of the argument, why must we not question that decision? We live in a ' free and open society' , why shouldn't we question, legitimately, the judgement of the Inquest.

No-one, least of all me, is saying that a verdict cannot be questioned. Of course it can. But anyone doing so must produce credible evidence to justify their argument.

The farce currently being played out in the High Court at massive expense, with complete and utter lunatics giving their own opinion as to what happened as opposed to what they did, saw and heard, is an object lesson of what the future holds for us if we capitulate to the demands of fact-free conspiraloons to hold forth on their chosen, entirely unsubstantiated theories.

Get some evidence, people will listen. Get some evidence to undermine evidence already accepted, people will listen. Jump up and down and say "I'm not convinced, therefore it must be something else and anyone who can count to three without using their fingers will point and laugh. But I don't suppose for a moment that you and Jazzz and the others will take a blind bit of notice ...

 

[detective-boy]

I love the 'or some thing'

It's called accepting that there are any number of possible explanations, some known, some unknown.

You'd be well advised to consider applying it sometimes, instead of blindly believing that (a) a "fact" is 100% reliable and (b) that it definitively means only one thing.

 

[detective-boy]

Go on, tell us why suicide is more likely than murder. Coz one thing's for sure, you ain't got no fucking evidence or proof.

Never stopped you and the other wankers telling us why murder is more likely than suicide, has it?

 

[editor]

It's a nonsense position to adopt.

So do you think silly ol'Mrs Kelly and her children - who knew Dr Kelly better than you or anyone else - have all got it wrong and you know best, yes?

Why is that please?

 

[editor]

It's really so so simple editor. Perhaps you have rather a rosy view of british special services and state actions?

Assuming that kelly was bumped off, then it would make good sense to ensure his wife does not cause any problems for the state. A quick word in her ear that her children's lives are at risk if she speaks out, and hey presto!.

All groundless, fact-free wild speculation, as usual.

I find your evidence-free assertion that Mrs Kelly is lying through her teeth just because she doesn't support your exciting superspy version of events, deeply offensive.

I totally expect you to reject it, since it does not fit in with your closed mind on the subject.

Triple-LOL!