Norman Baker MP: Kelly's death may have been murder

[detective-boy]

No doubt a D notice had something to do with that...

If you honestly think a D notice would be issued over something like that ... you really do need to seek help for your paranoia pretty urgently!

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

But it was. Thames Valley Police fully investigated it as an unexplained death. And I happen to know that their command team took a personal interest in making sure that everything was done thoroughly and corrected precisely because they realised from minute one that there could be a very different explanation ...

right so the coppers think it's suspicious and so to the medical team on site at the time (who dispite them given ing out random comments liek oooo don't think they'll pull through etc) went on public record to say so in this case...

so therefore Baker is correct a full public investigation is needed and not of the Hutton verifty...

 

[detective-boy]

so therefore Baker is correct a full public investigation is needed and not of the Hutton verifty...

There has been a full investigation by the police. Why does every one want a public enquiry over everything these days?

Next time you get fucking robbed dial 999 and ask for a retired judge ...

 

[smokedout]

there hasnt been a murder investigation as yet

 

[Jazzz]

There has been a full investigation by the police. Why does every one want a public enquiry over everything these days?

Coroner's inquest. That's what you are meant to have if you die in suspicious circumstances. Didn't Kelly deserve one?

If Kelly died from arterial bleeding there should have blood all over the shop. I saw a crime documentary on knife murders before Kelly died. Knife attacks resulting in arterial bleeding were being discussed, and the specialist said the number one feature of arterial bleeding is that you have blood sprayed absolutely everywhere.

With Kelly there was little blood at the scene.

Simple.

 

[detective-boy]

there hasnt been a murder investigation as yet

There has ... and there hasn't.

The police commenced an unexplained death investigation which ran for some days or weeks. This did everything a murder investigation would have done, using the same officers, systems, processes, support, etc.

It reached the point where the weight of evidence removed suspicions of homicide and the investigation was concluded. This is exactly what happens in such similar cases. I happen to know that because of the context of this case the evidence needed to justify concluding the investigation was significantly more than would have been usual.

The police do not carry out an investigation just for the hell of it. That would (a) be a waste of scarce resources and taxpayers money and (b) would result in unjustifiable interference in the lives of witnesses, families, etc.

 

[detective-boy]

Coroner's inquest. That's what you are meant to have if you die in suspicious circumstances. Didn't Kelly deserve one?

The Hutton Enquiry heard far more evidence than an inquest would have done (they are tightly restriicted to the death rather than the extended context) and the enquiry was empowered to act in lieu of an inquest (which would simply have been a duplicaton of part of it's work).

And get back to "Pathology for Dummies" ... the amount of blood from a cut artery depends on the particular artery and the circumstances (as highlighted by the pathologists quoted above by fellow conspiraloons and saying this particular artery wouldn't have bled enough to kill him ...

 

[In Bloom]

Next time you get fucking robbed dial 999 and ask for a retired judge ...

Why not? They're about as likely to get your stuff back.

 

[Jazzz]

The Hutton Enquiry heard far more evidence than an inquest would have done (they are tightly restriicted to the death rather than the extended context) and the enquiry was empowered to act in lieu of an inquest (which would simply have been a duplicaton of part of it's work).

The Hutton inquest did not investigate the actual physical cause of death as a coroner's inquest would have done - this is why there was a campaign to hold a coroner's inquest, silly. Hutton is no coroner.

And get back to "Pathology for Dummies" ... the amount of blood from a cut artery depends on the particular artery and the circumstances (as highlighted by the pathologists quoted above by fellow conspiraloons and saying this particular artery wouldn't have bled enough to kill him ...

Indeed, the amount of blood on the scene is consistent with the cutting of a minor artery - NOT ENOUGH to kill. If you die from arterial bleeding you need lose A LOT OF BLOOD and it will be sprayed all over the place.

You are proving my point!

 

[fela fan]

If you honestly think a D notice would be issued over something like that ... you really do need to seek help for your paranoia pretty urgently!

Could you help me undestand why by exemplifying? If you really think i suffer from paranoia then you must be deluded! Get a grip man, i'm having a ball where i live my life.

In advance of your reply, kelly had enough information to bring down blair.

That in turn would most likely have brought down bush.

Not a trifling matter really. Most defintely worthy of a D notice.

A question for you db. How come almost nobody in britain knows what a D notice is? How come, to the contrary, they believe they have a free press?

 

[Lock&Light]

A question for you db. How come almost nobody in britain knows what a D notice is? How come, to the contrary, they believe they have a free press?

A question for you, fela. Do you really believe that nobody in Britain knows what a D notice is?

 

[TAE]

What's a D notice?

 

[detective-boy]

Could you help me undestand why by exemplifying?

The D notice system largely depends on the cooperation of the press - there is a strong body of opinion which thinks it would not stand a proper challenge in the courts (particularly one based on human rights). In order to ensure that this cooperation remains in place the authorities only use them very sparingly.

You implied that a D notice was behind the fact that most of the media called it "suicide" rather than "suspected suicide". A D notice would not be used for such a trivial point. If it was, then it would take out all discussion of the cause of death, not just a single word. And I happen to know that no D notice was issued on that point anyway.

 

[detective-boy]

What's a D notice?

A short history ... http://www.dnotice.org.uk/history.htm#from_d_to_da

 

[detective-boy]

Why not? They're about as likely to get your stuff back.

Yeah, good point ...

 

[In Bloom]

Coroner's inquest. That's what you are meant to have if you die in suspicious circumstances. Didn't Kelly deserve one?

If Kelly died from arterial bleeding there should have blood all over the shop. I saw a crime documentary on knife murders before Kelly died. Knife attacks resulting in arterial bleeding were being discussed, and the specialist said the number one feature of arterial bleeding is that you have blood sprayed absolutely everywhere.

With Kelly there was little blood at the scene.

Simple.

So, if he didn't bleed to death and he didn't die of an overdose, what did he die of? If they wanted to fake a suicide, why didn't they just blow his brains out and leave the gun in his hand or hang him?

Why do it in such a weird and vaguely suspicious way?

 

[detective-boy]

Hutton is no coroner.

Neither is an Old Bailey judge and jury ... but Coroner's regularly decide not to reopen inquests after the completion of criminal trials if they consider that all the relevant facts have been properly examined in the trial which has already taken place.

My understanding is that that is what has happened here - the Coroner looked at the Hutton Enquiry evidence and decided that all the relevant facts had been thoroughly examined and there was no need to go over the same ground again. So a Coroner HAS reviewed the evidence.

 

[Jazzz]

So, if he didn't bleed to death and he didn't die of an overdose, what did he die of? If they wanted to fake a suicide, why didn't they just blow his brains out and leave the gun in his hand or hang him?

Why do it in such a weird and vaguely suspicious way?

I don't know how he died! Should every unexplained death be declared suicide, so we don't have any loose ends? This is what we have 'open verdicts' for.

Kelly death paramedics query verdict

On 18 July last year Bartlett and Hunt received an emergency call to attend a suspected suicide. Over the years they have raced to the scenes of dozens of attempted suicides in which somebody has cut their wrists. In only one case has the victim been successful.

'That was like a slaughterhouse,' recalls Hunt. 'Just think what it would be like with five or six pints of milk splashed everywhere.' If you slit your wrists, that is the equivalent amount of blood you would have to lose.

But this was not the scene which greeted the two paramedics when their ambulance arrived at Harrowdown Hill woods in Oxfordshire, where the body of Dr Kelly, the weapons expert, had been found.

...

Both saw that the left sleeves of his jacket and shirt had been pulled up to just below the elbow and there was dried blood around his left wrist.

'There was no gaping wound... there wasn't a puddle of blood around,' said Hunt. 'There was a little bit of blood on the nettles to the left of his left arm. But there was no real blood on the body of the shirt. The only other bit of blood I saw was on his clothing. It was the size of a 50p piece above the right knee on his trousers.'

Hunt found this very strange. 'If you manage to cut a wrist and catch an artery you would get a spraying of blood, regardless of whether it's an accident... Because of the nature of an arterial cut, you get a pumping action. I would certainly expect a lot more blood on his clothing, on his shirt. If you choose to cut your wrists, you don't worry about getting blood on your clothes.

'I didn't see any blood on his right hand... If he used his right hand to cut his wrist, from an arterial wound you would expect some spray.'

Bartlett agreed: 'I remember saying to one of the policemen it didn't look like he died from that [the wrist wound] and suggesting he must have taken an overdose or something else.'

Bartlett recalls being called to one attempted suicide where the blood had spurted so high it hit the ceiling. 'Even in this incident, the victim survived...

Kelly death paramedics query verdict - Guardian

 

[Jazzz]

Neither is an Old Bailey judge and jury ... but Coroner's regularly decide not to reopen inquests after the completion of criminal trials if they consider that all the relevant facts have been properly examined in the trial which has already taken place.

My understanding is that that is what has happened here - the Coroner looked at the Hutton Enquiry evidence and decided that all the relevant facts had been thoroughly examined and there was no need to go over the same ground again. So a Coroner HAS reviewed the evidence.

Let me put it another way - A Coroner's inquest would have been far different than the Hutton inquest where investigation into the death would have been concerned.

The Letter to the Guardian from the medics has put it stronger saying that Kelly has been DENIED an inquest

Questions over Kelly

Wednesday December 22, 2004
The Guardian


Dr David Kelly is the first British citizen whose sudden, unexpected and violent death has been denied an inquest. Three weeks after Dr Kelly's body was found, Lord Falconer ordered that the inquest into his death be adjourned indefinitely and subsumed into a public inquiry by invoking section 17a of the Coroner's Act 1988.

The section is designed to avoid duplication of inquiry in cases of multiple deaths where the cause of death can, to some extent, be assumed from the outset. But Dr Kelly's was a solitary death coming amid a political storm concerning doubts over the government's case for war with Iraq, and its cause required rigorous investigation. The Hutton inquiry had no power to call a jury, subpoena witnesses or cross-examine them under oath.

(my italics)
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,,1378539,00.html

Of course there could have been no political pressure brought to bear on the coroner when making his decision...

 

[In Bloom]

I don't know how he died! Should every unexplained death be declared suicide, so we don't have any loose ends? This is what we have 'open verdicts' for.

You have a nasty habit of building strawmen of other people's arguments. It's quite annoying.

In any case, where's the evidence for a murder? And why did they do it in such a cack handed way? It just doesn't make sense that professional killers wouldn't know what arteries to cut or how to make a faked suicide look convincing.

 

[detective-boy]

Of course there could have been no political pressure brought to bear on the coroner when making his decision...

You want to see conspiracies everywhere. You need help.

 

[fela fan]

A question for you, fela. Do you really believe that nobody in Britain knows what a D notice is?

Of course i don't lock, and i can't really fathom how you could be asking that question unless you couldn't read my post properly. What i said, not what i said i believed, is that almost nobody in britain knows what a D notice is.

And that's the simple truth. Go on mate, try it out where you work or socialise. Ask ten people and i bet a maximum of one can tell you. Probably none.

 

[fela fan]

The D notice system largely depends on the cooperation of the press - there is a strong body of opinion which thinks it would not stand a proper challenge in the courts (particularly one based on human rights). In order to ensure that this cooperation remains in place the authorities only use them very sparingly.

You implied that a D notice was behind the fact that most of the media called it "suicide" rather than "suspected suicide". A D notice would not be used for such a trivial point. If it was, then it would take out all discussion of the cause of death, not just a single word. And I happen to know that no D notice was issued on that point anyway.

I actually think that a D notice that stopped the paper talking about all discussion of the cause of death would badly backfire with the public rightly wondering about this rather important absence. Whereas the subtle use of 'suicide' at every turn, in every paragraph, in every article, in every newspaper, in all media, would be far more effective at avoiding the public consciousness from delving too deeply on this issue. Also, by constantly referring to it as a suicide means that they're hardly likely to be discussing about it being a murder.

Being a murder became a non-discussion. Just like so much stuff in britain. It's how the powerful have lead britain for a long long time. It's how they get away with their crimes, by non-discussion. If it's not talked about, then it didn't happen. Bingo!!

And yes, the D notice system does depend on the cooperation of the press, but that seems to be more than enough to make it work!

I'd like to see that large body of opinion testing out the courts.

A1? Or am i going into areas i ought not to?

 

[kyser_soze]

In advance of your reply, kelly had enough information to bring down blair.

That in turn would most likely have brought down bush.

And what, precisely, was this amazing information he had? That a dossier that had been largely discredited by large chunks of press and population as rubbish had been 'sexed up'? What exactly was the earth shattering information that Kelly had fela?

 

[Lock&Light]

Go on mate, try it out where you work or socialise. Ask ten people and i bet a maximum of one can tell you. Probably none.

D notices don't exist where I live.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

And what, precisely, was this amazing information he had? That a dossier that had been largely discredited by large chunks of press and population as rubbish had been 'sexed up'? What exactly was the earth shattering information that Kelly had fela?

although at the time to be fair blair had the DG of the beeb fired over the comments and said it was a pack of lies that they couldn't fire in 45 mins and yet less than 12 months later they fessed up that they were lying...

and in doing so thus admitted they lied to parliment at the time. Therefore TB would have been removed from office for deliberately misleading parliment and taking the country to war on a false/illegal basis (a war crime no less) had blair gone then bush wouldn't have had his lapdog to yap around whipping up support for the war and bush would have either been pulled down by his neck for lyign about WMD or more likely gone to war alone san's allies which would have resulted in a lot more US deaths and therefore no (r)election, well assuming he didn't steal it again like he did the first time...

 

[TeeJay]

I have just found something extremely suspicious:

Norman Baker's "dossier" on his website has been misleadingly entitled:

"Norman's view on bovine TB"
link

This leads me to suspect that it wasn't the owls at all. It was obviously the cows!

edit: Or maybe, on further investigation, it was the badgers?

Norman Baker: "This is a very difficult subject, therefore I find it quite distressing to reach the conclusion that some elimination of the badger population maybe necessary, but I have done so because I feel that the animal welfare implications of not doing so are probably worse."

link

 

[DrRingDing]

I actually think that a D notice that stopped the paper talking about all discussion of the cause of death would badly backfire with the public rightly wondering about this rather important absence. Whereas the subtle use of 'suicide' at every turn, in every paragraph, in every article, in every newspaper, in all media, would be far more effective at avoiding the public consciousness from delving too deeply on this issue. Also, by constantly referring to it as a suicide means that they're hardly likely to be discussing about it being a murder.

Being a murder became a non-discussion. Just like so much stuff in britain. It's how the powerful have lead britain for a long long time. It's how they get away with their crimes, by non-discussion. If it's not talked about, then it didn't happen. Bingo!!

Hear Hear!

 

[Jazzz]

You have a nasty habit of building strawmen of other people's arguments. It's quite annoying.

In any case, where's the evidence for a murder? And why did they do it in such a cack handed way? It just doesn't make sense that professional killers wouldn't know what arteries to cut or how to make a faked suicide look convincing.

eh? This is the most bizarre argument I have ever come across - yet it crops up regularly around here.

The less it looks like suicide the LESS likely it is to be murder?

And what do you mean by strawman?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Not seen you around for a bit, Jazzz. Welcome back. I thought they'd disappeared you.