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

[Lock&Light]

They simply knew he'd do it exactly their way, which is why they chose him.

To do anything else he would have required evidence. The evidence showed that Dr. Kelly had committed suicide. It did NOT show that he had been murdered.

 

[Lock&Light]

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.

"No Idea".

Says it all, really.

 

[DrRingDing]

Have you any proof of this alleged serious professional misconduct?

You will mock but this dude is most probably a mason, quite likely a high ranking one.

 

[editor]

You will mock but this dude is most probably a mason, quite likely a high ranking one.

I don't suppose you've any proof of that either, have you?

 

[DrRingDing]

I don't suppose you've any proof of that either, have you?

Are you willing to entertain the idea that government and it's ministries are heavily influenced by masons?

 

[editor]

Are you willing to entertain the idea that government and it's ministries are heavily influenced by masons?

Are you willing to entertain the idea that slopping around highly defamatory, fact-free, wild accusations of serious professional misconduct, cover ups, lies and involvement in murderous plots is not only likely to damage your credibility but it's also likely to cause this site problems unless you have some credible evidence to support such claims?

Have you any proof that he is a "high ranking" mason? And would you care to offer an explanation as to why that might impact on his professional judgement? Or are you saying that all the masons are in on it too?

Do you know if Kelly was a mason, by the way?

 

[DrRingDing]

I think that says it all about our governance.

 

[editor]

I think that says it all about our governance.

It says it's a 24k gif to me. What's it saying to you?

(Are you going to answer my points, btw, or have you moved on to 'picture puzzle' mode?)

 

[DrRingDing]

It says it's a 24k gif to me. What's it saying to you?

(Are you going to answer my points, btw, or have you moved on to 'picture puzzle' mode?)

That MI5 is heavily influenced by the masons.

If MI5 is under their steerage then that will give them access to control many people and institutions in this and other countries.

 

[editor]

That MI5 is heavily influenced by the masons.

You get all that from a logo? Blimey!

Have you a credible source for this claim that the 'MI5 is heavily influenced by the masons' please, and could you explain how this 'influence' manifests itself in everyday MI5 policy and perhaps give some examples?

And could you explain what the Masonic aims would be in supposedly playing a part in the murder (and subsequent cover) up of Dr Kelly? And how come no masons have stepped forward to blow the whistle on their trade organisation's murderous involvement?

Back to your claims, have you any proof whatsoever that Hunt is a "high ranking mason", and how do you know that Kelly wasn't a mason himself?

 

[DrRingDing]

You get all that from a logo? Blimey!

Maybe the designers were conspiraloons having a laugh and decided to make MI5 look like a masonic organisation.

Whatever the case that insignia is designed to appear masonic.

 

[editor]

Maybe the designers were conspiraloons having a laugh and decided to make MI5 look like a masonic organisation.

Whatever the case that insignia is designed to appear masonic.

And that's the sum total of your 'evidence' for masonic influence in the MI5 and their part in the 'murder' of Kelly, yes?



And, for the third (or is it fourth?) time of asking, do you have any proof whatsoever that Hunt is a "high ranking mason", and how do you know that Kelly wasn't a mason himself?

 

[fela fan]

The Kingdom of the Netherlands.

I know what country you live in, i asked you what world you lived in. D notices no doubt contribute heavily to blocking information getting to britons, who, not knowing, cannot complain to their government. You can't complain about what you don't know.

And we all know UK foreign policy is not very agreeable to many people around the world. If britons knew more about what's being done in their name, then we'd hold our politicians to be more accountable.

 

[ZWord]

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..

You may have never met one, but Richard Allan, the pathologist whose evidence at the Hutton inquiry is quoted in the link supplied by the editor, says that he worked for the Home office for 20 years, before working for the forensic alliance. - right at the top (of the link) as well-so if he's to be believed, they do exist. Nicholas Hunt, who's the pathologist described by the editor as a home office pathologist, doesn't feature in the link, at least not as far as I could see, so it's difficult to work out who employed him. So maybe you're not such an expert on the subject as you've been giving us the impression.

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 ...

Well I wonder if you read the article at all, - either you didn't, or else you're deliberately misrepresenting it, which doesn't say a lot for your claimed neutrality. The main thrust of the article that you seem to have somehow overlooked is that there were major discrepancies between the account given by DC Coe, and the accounts given by other key witnesses. These discrepancies were fairly obvious, but for some reason, at the Hutton inquiry, DC Coe was not cross-examined at all concerning these discrepancies. Now, if as you say, the Hutton inquiry was an example of a neutral and independent process, he should have been cross-examined. That he wasn't certainly seems to add a lot of weight to the theory that the Hutton inquiry was nothing but a cover-up.

To be honest, your failure to do justice to this article, which can only really be dismissed by saying it's a pack of lies, casts a bit of doubt on whether you should be considered an honest commentator here.

A couple of other points. If David Kelly did commit suicide, I would have thought that anger would have been a large part of his state of mind at the time.. and I find it surprising that he didn't leave a detailed letter explaining himself and dropping as much shit as he could on a bunch of people.

The idea that if it was a fake suicide it was a pretty poor job, therefore it probably wasn't a fake suicide, or it would have been more professionally done, is, as jazzz pointed out, a pretty bizarre argument. But it also assumes that the agencies responsible would have wanted their fake suicide to look like a fake suicide. And that's not necessarily true, - they might very well have wanted the general perception to be that it was murder, and that the government disguised it as suicide. (and that's pretty much what they achieved.) The agencies responsible for the murder cannot necessarily be identified with the government, they might even to some extent have wanted both to create suspicion of the government and fear of the government at the same time.

 

[fela fan]

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.

Nothing wrong with your words here, but it's a pity the media didn't need evidence to pronounce so boldly, as they did with the one exception i mentioned earlier in the thread, that it was a suicide.

They didn't need evidence or any inquest or anything. Just the government's word. Suicide. The possibility of it being a murder wasn't discussed.

Interesting that. Are you certain there was no D notice issued over the kelly story? If you're right then the level of journalism in the UK is even worse than i'd thought.

 

[DrRingDing]

And, for the third (or is it fourth?) time of asking, do you have any proof whatsoever that Hunt is a "high ranking mason", and how do you know that Kelly wasn't a mason himself?

Firstly I said 'most probably' not 'definately'.

Do you have any evidence he is not a mason?

....and Kelly may of been a mason.

 

[fela fan]

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.

But interestingly the entire media (with the exception of the bbc web site, international version) told the public quite confidently that it was a suicide.

The possibility of it being a murder was not mentioned.

Secret stuff happens quite easily in britain, coz if it's not mentioned in the press, then it didn't happen. Fucking easy really. Those media barons, editors and politicians make the establishment run pretty smoothly on the whole, and take good care of it. Kelly threatened that, but then in one of those wonderfully timed coincidences took his own life.

Funny how these coincidences always seem to favour those in power...

 

[fela fan]

What actual evidence is there to suggest he was murdered?

And by whom? And how?

Nobody here, or anywhere in public, has evidence to say if it was suicide or murder.

Interestingly the entire media concluded that it was suicide.

How did they come to this conclusion? Were they privvy to information that they didn't tell us, the public?

Free media in the UK? Pah!!

 

[editor]

If David Kelly did commit suicide, I would have thought that anger would have been a large part of his state of mind at the time.. and I find it surprising that he didn't leave a detailed letter explaining himself and dropping as much shit as he could on a bunch of people.

Oh come on! This is utterly groundless conjecture. Not every suicide leaves a note and trying to draw any inference of foul play by the absence of one is an absolute non starter.

The idea that if it was a fake suicide it was a pretty poor job, therefore it probably wasn't a fake suicide, or it would have been more professionally done, is, as jazzz pointed out, a pretty bizarre argument.

Not half as bizarre as the suggestion that because it looks to some people like a poorly done fake suicide then that somehow lends weight to the theory that it actually was a fake suicide job, despite the complete lack of credible evidence for murder.

 

[editor]

Free media in the UK? Pah!!

Christ, not this all over again.



Have you any actual evidence to support the case that he was murdered?

 

[fela fan]

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.

Never believe anything until it's been denied by the government...

 

[DrRingDing]

Christ, not this all over again.

Freedom in the press does not exist, unless you own a newspaper of course

 

[ZWord]

Oh come on! This is utterly groundless conjecture. Not every suicide leaves a note and trying to draw any inference of foul play by the absence of one is an absolute non starter.

Not half as bizarre as the suggestion that because it looks to some people like a poorly done fake suicide then that somehow lends weight to the theory that it actually was a fake suicide job, despite the complete lack of credible evidence for murder.

Well you seem to have ignored almost everything I've said.. So I'll presume you've accepted all my other points.

What evidence would you expect to have been found if it was murder?

edited to add: Does no answer mean there isn't any other evidence you'd expect to have been found if it was murder, or just that you can't think of any. I can't think of any myself, which is why I asked.

But if that's right, then you are basically admitting that there's nothing that could clearly distinguish between suicide and murder in this case.. which is fair enough.. in which case, why is it that you object so strongly to people saying they think it was murder but not to people saying they think it was suicide. ??

 

[fela fan]

Christ, not this all over again.



Have you any actual evidence to support the case that he was murdered?

Do you have any comment on the rest of my post that you quoted from? Here it is again:

"Nobody here, or anywhere in public, has evidence to say if it was suicide or murder.

Interestingly the entire media concluded that it was suicide.

How did they come to this conclusion? Were they privvy to information that they didn't tell us, the public?"

You work for the media, what's your take on the fact that they concluded from the start that it was suicide, yet without apparantly any evidence. Only the government's word.

Or was a D notice applied?

 

[fela fan]

Christ, not this all over again.



Have you any actual evidence to support the case that he was murdered?

Oh, look, you've added another bit to your post.

READ, dear editor, READ what i say. Look, here it is again:

"Nobody here, or anywhere in public, has evidence to say if it was suicide or murder.

Interestingly the entire media concluded that it was suicide."

Now, what evidence did the media have editor? Or were they slapped with a D notice?

 

[editor]

Interestingly the entire media concluded that it was suicide.

You're talking shit again.

But of course - I forgot that you pride yourself that you don't read papers or watch TV, preferring to remain in ignorance and rely on your 'mirrors' for your insights from afar.

There was plenty of frank and open debate in the media about the verdict. Still is, actually, but don't let that upset your cartoon version of the nasty, government-fawning UK media.

Funnily enough, there was an excellent program last night about how the Tory government tried to censor the IRA and how the UK journalists (sorry 'government lackeys,' right?) fought tooth and nail to report the truth.

Such was their determination to circumvent the government's ban on reporting that Thatcher believed that the BBC were actually on the side of the terrorists at one point!

Anyway, that dose of reality aside, I'll let you go back to your clueless stereotyping ranting again. But don't forget to mention your 'mirrors.'

They're a great laugh, they are.

 

[editor]

Well you seem to have ignored almost everything I've said.. So I'll presume you've accepted all my other points.

<gives up>

 

[detective-boy]

To be honest, your failure to do justice to this article, which can only really be dismissed by saying it's a pack of lies, casts a bit of doubt on whether you should be considered an honest commentator here.

...

The idea that if it was a fake suicide it was a pretty poor job, therefore it probably wasn't a fake suicide, or it would have been more professionally done, is, as jazzz pointed out, a pretty bizarre argument. But it also assumes that the agencies responsible would have wanted their fake suicide to look like a fake suicide. And that's not necessarily true, - they might very well have wanted the general perception to be that it was murder, and that the government disguised it as suicide. (and that's pretty much what they achieved.) The agencies responsible for the murder cannot necessarily be identified with the government, they might even to some extent have wanted both to create suspicion of the government and fear of the government at the same time.

Look mate, I really don't care whether or not you believe what I am saying. But you are talking bollocks. I am trying to assist you with some things you don't know. If you don't want to know then I won't bother. You can go fuck yourself.

But you have seriously misunderstood. Alexander Richard Allen is not even a fucking pathologist. He is a forensic scientist. As such he used to work for the "Home Office Forensic Science Service" (if you read the next fucking line of the evidence ). That is an agency of the Home Office. It has been the standard source of analytical work for the police service for years. It was the only supplier. Just like pathologists, the scientists are neutral professionals and consider their responsibility to be to the Court not to whoever commissions them. Like the pathologists, they would regularly be instructed by the defence to do analytical work for them as they were widely accepted as neutral. Forensic Alliance is a private company which has entered the field of forensic science in the last ten years or so. It has now been taken over by another private sector company in the field, LGC (the Laboratory of the Government Chemist as was). I have done work with the FSS, Forensic Alliance and the LGC in the past.

So go find me a "pathologist employed by the Home Office".

As for the article, I am perfectly able to see the apparent inconsistencies between the evidence of DC Coe and some of the others. I suspect it wasn't pursued because it was not considered particularly relevant. I doubt very much whether it would have been pursued in an ordinary inquest - and an ordinary inquest almost certainly would NOT have called so many live witnesses and would NOT usually have had a barrister to examine the witnesses at all - the Coroner usually asks a (relatively few) questions personally.

My point is that the article takes the usual course of taking a small inconsistency and then adding "ifs", "buts", "therefores" and "maybes" to get to wholly unjustifiable positions. Your final paragraph is a classic example of the genre ...

 

[xes]

I propose that the E.D.I.T.O.R (Executive Deflector of Illuminati Theorists and Oriental Retail) is actually being controlled by the masons.

On a side note,i also think that kelly was mur-diddly-urdered,but there'll never be any evidence,cos the people who did it are pretty good at covering their tracks. I just don't trust the goverment or any of its agencies.

 

[detective-boy]

Interesting that. Are you certain there was no D notice issued over the kelly story? If you're right then the level of journalism in the UK is even worse than i'd thought.

Not according to my contacts in Fleet Street and they usually know. And the issue of a D notice would normally prevent publication of anything to do with a story. I am not aware of them being used to pick and choose which facts can or can't be mentioned and certainly not to define the phraseology (suicide, not suspected suicide) to be used.