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

[Azrael23]

"may" have been murder? lmao

 

[Jazzz]

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

Thank you DF, very kind! just had a bit of a break.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Is it the same Jazzz though?

 

[fela fan]

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?

Garfield has saved me from the need to reply.

You're not a history revisionist by any chance are you kyser? Or is it a case of selective anmesia? Or even poor choice and variety of reading matter?

[just having a laugh mate]

 

[fela fan]

D notices don't exist where I live.

What bloody world do you live in then?

 

[In Bloom]

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?

Not what I said. The point is that if Kelly couldn't have died from the slit wrists or the overdose, it's a bit weird that trained killers would throw that in there, surely they would have done it right. Sounds like a bit of a botched job to me, actually, maybe ITV should do a series on 'Assassins from Hell'?

And what do you mean by strawman?

The bit just above this sentence in your post would be a good example.

 

[Lock&Light]

What bloody world do you live in then?

The Kingdom of the Netherlands.

 

[ZWord]

And..."Home Office pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt concluded either of two of the cuts to Dr Kelly's wrist, which had been made by a blade, would have proved fatal".

Well maybe they were the cause of his death. But the issue isn't primarily whether these were the cause of death, but who made the cuts. Actually it's quite difficult to do yourself enough damage to ensure that you bleed to death, unless you immerse yourself in water, or take lots of aspirin to stop the blood from clotting, which is why a lot of people who try this method fail.

Home office pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt.... employed by the government, can hardly be considered an unbiased source of information. How likely would he have been to keep his job, if he'd said the opposite, or even that the evidence was inconclusive, as it probably is. ? Are there any pathologists not employed by the government who are certain it was suicide?

Does anyone know what activities the police made after the body was found, in terms of examing the area for evidence about who caused the death. ? Was the case dealt with by a normal procedure? eta - I see Detective boy already covered this, though again, I imagine it's possible to put political pressure on police, - select the right people and tell them not to find anything... But, - what would they have found. Actually the whole thing is weirder than it seems even after consideration. If there wasn't loads of blood at the scene, then he can't have bled to death, because someone who bleeds to death leaves an enormous amount of blood at the scene. But if he didn't bleed to death, then what did he die of? - Drug overdose? sounds unlikely, apparently, and even that doesn't establish for certain whether he was forced to take the drugs. And who did the post-mortem, --? only the home office pathologist, or was there some other independent pathologist as well who did a post mortem? And why was it a home office pathologist who did the post mortem anyway,? - which is what editor seems to be saying. Is it normal procedure for suspicious deaths to be examined by home office pathologists? or do they only do that when there are some grounds for suspicion that the government might be involved with the death. Anyway-- it's a bit late now to do another post mortem.

 

[kyser_soze]

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...

And just how likely would this idealised chain of events have been? Given that none of it happened when it was revealed that it was phoney what difference would those 12 months have made? Do you really think that even if this had been shown at the time it would have made any difference to events? That Blair would have been booted out?

I don't categorically rule out murder - but then you're into who, when and if it was a 'hit' who gave the order? Where is the evidence to suggest it was anything other than suicide? That's the key problem.

 

[editor]

Home office pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt.... employed by the government, can hardly be considered an unbiased source of information. How likely would he have been to keep his job, if he'd said the opposite, or even that the evidence was inconclusive, as it probably is. ?

Have you any proof of this alleged serious professional misconduct?

 

[ZWord]

proof? and the next step is to say can you withdraw your libellous comment.?

Well, yes.. -- two independent and experienced eyewitness accounts stating categorically that the amount of blood on the ground was incompatible with someone having bled to death..

But, actually, as far as I can tell, the quote you gave doesn't even say that the cause of death was bleeding to death, and there must be other ways of assessing that apart from the depth of the cut.. What it says if you read it carefully, was that the cuts were sufficient to cause death.. And maybe they were, so he might not be lying at all. But just because they were sufficient to cause death tells you nothing about whether they were inflicted before or after death, or who inflicted them..

I haven't made any accusation of professional misconduct, - I've merely pointed out that a home office pathologist isn't the best example of an unbiased source, as he works for the organisation that some people suspect of being complicit in Kelly's death. And - if you look at the edit above, I've wondered why in any case the postmortem should have been done by - a home office pathologist- rather than just the first independent pathologist available. (or do they all work for the home office, in which case I totally misunderstood) I find it hard to believe that's normal procedure, despite the assertions of DB that normal procedure for a suspicious death was followed in every way.

 

[editor]

I haven't made any accusation of professional misconduct, - I've merely pointed out that a home office pathologist isn't the best example of an unbiased source, as he works for the organisation that some people suspect of being complicit in Kelly's death.

Are the Forensic Alliance in the frame for Kelly's alleged 'murder' then? (for that is who Hunt works for).
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans28.htm

If you're going to suggest that a forensic pathologist is in fact a liar and directly complicit in covering up a heinous murder, I'd suggest that the odd supporting fact or two might help your case.

 

[ZWord]

Well that link all seems to be about Richard Allan's evidence, rather than Nicholas Hunt's.,

And I haven't said he's lying..

But I have to go. And the point is more, that there are reasonable grounds for an open verdict, and it seems one-sided to deny that.

 

[detective-boy]

...employed by the government...

For your information, "Home Office pathologists" are accredited by the Home Office, not employed by them. They are independent professionals, answerable only to the Courts. They are recognised as such by the legal profession who ALWAYS use a "Home Office pathologist" to carry out their defence examinations. I have NEVER met an "independent" pathologist who was not Home Office accredited. It's like the profession's equivalent of QC!

"Home Office pathologists" carry out the post-mortem examination in every unexplained death or suspected homicide. They may also be asked to conduct examinations in other, lesser, cases where there is any signficant issue which has / may arise.[/QUOTE]

 

[detective-boy]

Where is the evidence to suggest it was anything other than suicide?

That's the difficulty the media and the public have difficulty with. There may not be enough evidence to convince beyond reasonable doubt that it was suicide, but there is enough evidence to conclude it was on the balance of probabilities.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest it is anything other than suicide.

The very nature of inquests is such that it is very, very often the case that the circumstances of death cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt. Mainly because the main source of information is absent and, unless they left a note, the rest of us have to try and work out what happened from other sources.

 

[detective-boy]

I find it hard to believe that's normal procedure, despite the assertions of DB that normal procedure for a suspicious death was followed in every way.

As you believe a pathologist would be lying, it is hardly surprising that you don't believe a word I say.

But the fact that you don't believe it doesn't alter the fact that it's true.

Role of the Pathologist: A Home Office Pathologist is appointed by the Coroner to perform a post mortem examination. An SIO should also ensure that the Coroner is aware and in agreement and that the pathologist is aware of the Coroner’s authority. The purpose of the post mortem is to establish the cause of death, the extent of the injuries, the presence of any natural disease and to make a factual record of the findings. Furthermore, the pathologist can offer opinions concerning what may have happened at the scene and when death may have occurred.

 

[ZWord]

For your information, "Home Office pathologists" are accredited by the Home Office, not employed by them. They are independent professionals, answerable only to the Courts. They are recognised as such by the legal profession who ALWAYS use a "Home Office pathologist" to carry out their defence examinations. I have NEVER met an "independent" pathologist who was not Home Office accredited. It's like the profession's equivalent of QC!

"Home Office pathologists" carry out the post-mortem examination in every unexplained death or suspected homicide. They may also be asked to conduct examinations in other, lesser, cases where there is any signficant issue which has / may arise.

[/QUOTE]

Ok, right, well I misunderstood the meaning of that, so presumably Nicholas Hunt and Richard Allan were both independent pathologists. Did they conduct separate autopsies, or did they do the autopsy together? Apparently, Richard Allan says that previously he worked for the Home Office, though at the time of the autopsy he worked for the forensic alliance. So there are such things as pathologists who work for the home office, as well as pathologists who are accredited by them. As a matter of fact, do you know whether Nick Hunt worked for the home office or was just accredited by them.. ? And I'm wondering why there seem to have been two autopsies. I didn't get to the bottom of editor's link, and so didn't finally establish what Richard Allan said he thought was the cause of death.

The point still remains, that the quote from editor, regarding Nick Hunt's evidence about the nature of the cut seems totally inconclusive regarding the issue of whether or not Kelly was murdered, as it's simply irrelevant to the question of who made the cut, whether or not it was deep enough to cause someone to bleed to death. Personally, I think that if Nicholas Hunt was correct to say that it was, that rather points to murder, because it doesn't square with there not being enough blood present at the scene, - thus implying that perhaps the cut was inflicted after death, -

Medical opinion seems to be divided on the subject, which suggests to me that probably the most balanced verdict would have been an open one.
This wasn't what was obtained, which to me implies that the process by which the verdict was obtained was probably rigged to get a verdict of suicide.

In support of this, there is apparently a volume of evidence concerning the behaviour of DC Coe, that is said to look suspicious. It is claimed that he was not properly cross-examined, as he should have been in a neutral process.

I would be interested to know what you think of this article.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1164

I don't know whether it's true or not, but, unless you've extensively investigated the whole issue by talking to the relevant people personally yourself, - neither do you- and I don't think it would be an adequate response to simply dismiss it on the grounds of its title. Though that's the kind of thing I often think, - e.g. - government report/inquiry, - probably a load of bollocks..

And finally, there's this point. If you were an independent pathologist, who was normally professional and honest, and you conducted the autopsy, and you found that it looked extremely likely that Kelly was murdered, say by injection with an empty syringe, and it seemed to you that the cuts were inflicted after death. - and you then received an anonymous phone call warning you that it was in fact suicide, What would you do if you valued your life?

It seems to me to be sheer hyperbole to maintain that I have claimed the forensic alliance are "in on it." and not to view alternative explanations as credible and possible, shows a failure of imagination.

 

[Jazzz]

Not what I said. The point is that if Kelly couldn't have died from the slit wrists or the overdose, it's a bit weird that trained killers would throw that in there, surely they would have done it right. Sounds like a bit of a botched job to me, actually, maybe ITV should do a series on 'Assassins from Hell'?

How do we know his killers were 'trained'? If I was found dead in the woods I would hope that people wouldn't assume I had to have been bumped off by James Bond, or committed suicide instead.

You can't second guess that kind of stuff. The fact is, it looks like murder very messily framed as suicide, and that simply means it's likely to be murder - anything else is perverse logic.

 

[detective-boy]

You can't second guess that kind of stuff. The fact is, it looks like murder very messily framed as suicide, and that simply means it's likely to be murder - anything else is perverse logic.

Well, that's sorted then.

 

[detective-boy]

Apparently, Richard Allan says that previously he worked for the Home Office, though at the time of the autopsy he worked for the forensic alliance. So there are such things as pathologists who work for the home office, as well as pathologists who are accredited by them. As a matter of fact, do you know whether Nick Hunt worked for the home office or was just accredited by them.. ? And I'm wondering why there seem to have been two autopsies.

....

I would be interested to know what you think of this article.
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1164

I think someone has misunderstood. I have never met a pathologist who works for the Home Office. It is not unusual in cases where there is no clear cause of death for the Coroner to order a second post-mortem (effectively the same as getting a second opinion from a doctor when you are alive). It may be that the family of Mr Kelly had requested that a second post-mortem be considered.

And the article is the usual conspiracy theorist wild extrapolation from small inconsistencies. For instance, it uses the fact that an investigation was carried out into a sighting of three men in black or dark clothing in the area as the basis for a long flight of fancy, involving dozens of assumptions, "proving" there must have been something dodgy about the police operation. Maybe, just maybe, the police had a sighting which the witness was sufficiently concerned about to raise. And which they couldn't immediately work out whether or not it was / could have been police officers. So they investigated it. Like they would / should.

And what do you think the article would have said if they hadn't ...

 

[kyser_soze]

The fact is, it looks like murder very messily framed as suicide, and that simply means it's likely to be murder - anything else is perverse logic.

I think the FACTS are that a dead body was found in a wooded area, with cuts on his wrists etc.

The circumstances around that death - he was a whistleblower on the whole government and was a threat that had to be dealt with/he was deeply unhappy with the way his work had been used, being alienated from his colleagues and work - can be used to support arguments for either foul play OR suicide, and since there is an even bigger lack of evidence for foul play than there is suicide, I err on that being the most likely sequence of events.

I agree that it does smell - my first reaction all that time ago was 'Is it a hit?' - but beyond wild extrapolations there is little beyond conjecture in regards of it being a murder.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The circumstances around that death - he was a whistleblower on the whole government and was a threat that had to be dealt with/he was deeply unhappy with the way his work had been used, being alienated from his colleagues and work - can be used to support arguments for either foul play OR suicide, and since there is an even bigger lack of evidence for foul play than there is suicide, I err on that being the most likely sequence of events.

Especially since he said he might be found dead in the woods.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,,1372078,00.html (Sorry if this has been posted already). From the looks of it there is no evidence to support suicide "on the balance of probablities"

 

[editor]

From the looks of it there is no evidence to support suicide "on the balance of probablities"

What actual evidence is there to suggest he was murdered?

And by whom? And how?

 

[In Bloom]

How do we know his killers were 'trained'? If I was found dead in the woods I would hope that people wouldn't assume I had to have been bumped off by James Bond, or committed suicide instead.

So when did the British secret state, with all it's funding and decades of collective experience of stuff like this, start sending incompetent amatuers out to do highly sensitive work like bumping off a whistleblower who's still very much in the public eye?

And why would they do something so rediculously onto? Wouldn't it be easier to just plant kiddy porn on his computer or something?

You can't second guess that kind of stuff. The fact is, it looks like murder very messily framed as suicide, and that simply means it's likely to be murder - anything else is perverse logic.

I'm still unconvinced that it looks like anything other than suicide. All you have is a handful of individuals, none of whom got a close enough look at the body to know exactly what was going on, saying that they feel it's a bit suspicious.

 

[sleaterkinney]

What actual evidence is there to suggest he was murdered?

And by whom? And how?

I said there was no evidence to suggest that he commited suicide, according to that article. Why did you try and twist my words then?

 

[sleaterkinney]

As you believe a pathologist would be lying, it is hardly surprising that you don't believe a word I say.

But the fact that you don't believe it doesn't alter the fact that it's true.

Well they got Hutton, who also had taken an oath of some sort to do a whitewash, so why not a pathologist, would you put it past this government?

 

[editor]

Why did you try and twist my words then?

Actually, if you bothered to read my words before engaging knee jerk mode, you'll see I simply asked you a question.

If you don't want to answer it, that's fine.

 

[editor]

Well they got Hutton, who also had taken an oath of some sort to do a whitewash, so why not a pathologist, would you put it past this government?

Have you any evidence at all that points to such an act of serious professional misconduct by Dr Hunt?

You're suggesting that he was complicit in a murder. That's a very serious allegation so have you anything to support it?

 

[Streathamite]

Well they got Hutton, who also had taken an oath of some sort to do a whitewash, so why not a pathologist, would you put it past this government?

It may be more simple than that; hutton has built a rep, over 40 years at bar and bench, as one who will uncritically accept the State and Establishment 'line', and then push it zealously. They simply knew he'd do it exactly their way, which is why they chose him.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Have you any evidence at all that points to such an act of serious professional misconduct by Dr Hunt?

You're suggesting that he was complicit in a murder. That's a very serious allegation so have you anything to support it?

No, I don't, but I would not put it past this government/establishment, with the whole Iraq thing I wouldn't give them the benefit of the doubt.