Structaural
in Chatsubo
kyser_soze said:
The very first mention was in the Guardian letters pages. A letter from the paramedics first on the scene.
Norman Baker MP: Kelly's death may have been murder
- Thread starter TAE
- Start date
The very first mention was in the Guardian letters pages. A letter from the paramedics first on the scene.
Paul Marsh
NeitherWashingtonNorMecca
editor said:
Agreed.
But why not just say "sod the lot of you" and clear off to a big house in Provence on a fat pension?
editor
hiraethified
Oh, I don't know, maybe quaint old fashioned things like professionalism, pride, a sense of duty and honour all contributed to his mental state at the end?Paul Marsh said:
I'm not sure how I'd react if my whole life crumbled around me as 'friends' lined up to disown me and dump me in the shit.
Paul Marsh said:
All suicides have alternatives. We never can know why they chose not to follow them.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
TAE said:
The Mail is a bit conspiracy-tastic at times (altho not as much as the Express), and it's got an avowed mission to discredit the Labour govt any way it can.
The Scotsman is not the august paper of record it once was - probably more credible than the Mail tho.
Andrew Gilligan (who, if anyone was going to subscribe to the conspiracy theory would be at the head of the queue I would suggest) wrote on the subject in the Standard last night.
He concluded that Baker was wrong. He characterised the "evidence" in his "dossier" (unfortunate chioice of description!) was pretty much repetition of the old stuff and the only real issue was the fact that statistics suggest suidcide were unlikely (he pointed out that there was only one such suicide in 2003 - Kelly himself). BUt, of course, statistics don't prove or disprove anything. Just because no-one has done it before doesn't mean he couldn't.
He also pointed out that Kelly defined himself by his job (he mentioned several bits of domestic stuff showing it's relative unimportance to him) and, as such, the potential loss of his job would be a far, far more distressing potential outcome than for a more normal, more rounded person.
Withe reference to some of the other stuff mentioned by Baker alternative explanations exist (e.g. paramedics saying they'd expect more blood - but this was on a field not an impervious surface, so it would tend to sink in rather than spread as a pool) or they are simply wrong (e.g. police did not check his mobile phone calls - they did).
He even looked at the conspiraloon favourite start-point "who gains" and argued against all the usual suspects if it had been murder.
Donna Ferentes says there's no evidence of suicide. Bollocks. There may not be sufficient to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" but there is a considerable amount. There is NONE that it was murder. In these circumstances you can never know for sure what happened or why. But there is nothing to justify the claim that it was murder.
He concluded that Baker was wrong. He characterised the "evidence" in his "dossier" (unfortunate chioice of description!) was pretty much repetition of the old stuff and the only real issue was the fact that statistics suggest suidcide were unlikely (he pointed out that there was only one such suicide in 2003 - Kelly himself). BUt, of course, statistics don't prove or disprove anything. Just because no-one has done it before doesn't mean he couldn't.
He also pointed out that Kelly defined himself by his job (he mentioned several bits of domestic stuff showing it's relative unimportance to him) and, as such, the potential loss of his job would be a far, far more distressing potential outcome than for a more normal, more rounded person.
Withe reference to some of the other stuff mentioned by Baker alternative explanations exist (e.g. paramedics saying they'd expect more blood - but this was on a field not an impervious surface, so it would tend to sink in rather than spread as a pool) or they are simply wrong (e.g. police did not check his mobile phone calls - they did).
He even looked at the conspiraloon favourite start-point "who gains" and argued against all the usual suspects if it had been murder.
Donna Ferentes says there's no evidence of suicide. Bollocks. There may not be sufficient to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" but there is a considerable amount. There is NONE that it was murder. In these circumstances you can never know for sure what happened or why. But there is nothing to justify the claim that it was murder.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
You're quite right: I meant to write that it was the murder theory for which there was no evidence! Apologies.detective-boy said:
bluestreak
HomosexualityIsStalin’sAtomBombtoDestroyAmerica
wasn't it said that he believed that he was going to lose his pension if he was sacked?Paul Marsh said:
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
detective-boy said:
Of course there is no concrete evidence pointy directly at MI6 it would be utterly stupid to expect otherwise. A highly professional killing organisation like them wouldn't leave a trail, especially on such a high profile case.
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
It's the classic conspiracy argument - there's no evidence because there wouldn't be! It's perfect....
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
Donna Ferentes said:
In seriousness, what evidence would expect if this was a job by MI6?
DrRingDing said:
Though there is no evidence that they did it, there is evidence that they didn't. Namely they got nothing out of it. The beans were already spilled.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
How do you know 'all the beans were spilt'?
I'm not surprised that you take the official line, if I may put it like that. But why do you say there is nothing to justify the claim that it was murder? For starters, no such claim exists!detective-boy said:
The claim is that the case for suicide is far from conclusive. What is wrong with that claim? There are many "maybe"s and "could have"s in your summery of Andrew Gilligan's analysis.
editor
hiraethified
Strangely enough, conspiracy folks are always insisting that MI6 always leave a catalogue of glaring errors and inconsistencies after every job.DrRingDing said:
These are usually so obvious that even the most unqualified spoddy bedroom 'investigator' can spot them from the comfort of their home PC!
But your argument seems a bit wobbly: if you're saying that MI6 must have done it because there's no evidence, then surely they would have done a much better job of it and made it really obvious that it was a suicide.
But then if you're saying the evidence looks suspicious, then that suggests that the job wasn't done very well so it couldn't have been a MI6 job!
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
editor said:
If a we were permitted to do a poll I think you'll find a lot of people think this is suspicion, infact, I bet you do really, unofficially of course.
TAE said:
It's true. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that Robin Cook was murdered by MI5, so he must have been.
Dubversion said:
It has happened before in the UK after all.
http://www.relativesforjustice.com/publications/fru.htm
editor said:
The point, I thought, was that it wouldn't be the first time the UK govt. tried assassinating somebody embarrassing to them. Nothing to do with 'relatives for justice' site except that it established that one fact.
Are you being deliberately obtuse - what does it matter what the websites called - do you slag people off for posting political articles from 'commondreams' on a political thread because everyone knows that 'dreams' have nothing to do with politics?
editor said:
a/ this thread, I thought, was about kelley's death - was it murder or not
b/ I thought it would be helpful to link to a well known case where the UK govt was involved in a killing [to show it could happen in our wonderful country]
c/ I just wanted to show that there might be a case to be made [however slim IMO] for murder
d/given that I just get slagged off for posting, I'm outa this thread - it doesn't seem to be going anywhere anyway - apart from one of editor's conspiraloon hunts
Similar threads
