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

[editor]

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.

So why don't his family think that too?

After all, they knew Kelly better any of these armchair investigators.

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.

Sccchhhhhhh!

 

[girasol]

I thought that there was a good chance that he may have been murdered at the time, it doesn't seem that far fetched, really, and it made more sense to me than suicide.

But I guess we might never know for sure.

 

[detective-boy]

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.

My recollection of the initial coverage, and the initial comments by Thames Valley Police, was that it was being fully investigated as an unexplained death (i.e. in the same way as a murder) for the first few days at least, albeit there was rapidly a suggestion that it appeared to be suicide.

 

[DrRingDing]

There was plenty of frank and open debate in the media about the verdict.

So you wouldn't mind posting up major articles in the current mainstream press that seriously questions Kellys 'suicide'?

 

[xes]

So why don't his family think that too?

After all, they knew Kelly better any of these armchair investigators.

Maybe they do,but don't want to speak publicly as they could have been threatened. (just 1 theory that popped into my head) Who knows,not us that's for sure

I'll entertain most ideas,but I'll form my own opinions. I just think that it was all too convinient,and i'm a sceptical bugger.

 

[DrRingDing]

So why don't his family think that too?

After all, they knew Kelly better any of these armchair investigators.
Sccchhhhhhh!

How do you know what his family really think?

Or are you just going on their well revised statement for the press.

 

[detective-boy]

Private Eye this week ...

PRINCESS DIANA KILLED DAVID KELLY

Exclusive to the Mail and the Express

Dramatic new evidence has come to light that Princess Diana almost certainly murdered Dr David Kelly who was found dead in Oxfordshire three years ago.

It is now widely accepted that Princess Diana faked her death in a car crash in Paris in August 1997 - otherwise she couldn't possibly have killed David Kelly some six years later.

Dr David Kelly's last name was Kelly. Diana was often seen on the telly. The two words are almost identical. Coincidence?

Princess Diana had an affair with James Hewitt. James Hewitt later appeared on the reality TV programme "The Games" on Channel 4. A drama about Dr David ellly's death was also screened on Channel 4. This cannot merely be put down to "coincidence".

Dr David Kelly was found slumped against a tree. And, as a member of the Royal Family, Diana was regularly photographed at tree-planting ceremonies.

Surely now we should call for a public enquiry into specious articles made up to fill the paper (surely "an enquiry into their deaths" Ed.)

Well, it makes about as much sense as the bollocks being posted on here ...

 

[kyser_soze]

Current news coverage extends to the Mail and Mirror in the last couple of weeks (the Mail are the main point for calling for the whole case to be reopened); the Scotsman; the express has something in it early in July...

Of course, the alternative answer is that Radiohead's Thom Yorke has in fact co-opted all these people to help support the release on August 21st of his single 'Harrowdown Hill', about Dr Kelly...

http://www.gigwise.com/news.asp?contentid=19430

And of course it's three years since, it's the summer silly season and you're looking at at least two newspapers with an anti-Labour mission who are leading the current resurgence in interest.

So joining all these things together to come up with a whole, as many people seem to enjoy doing:

Thom Yorke killed Dr Kelly and, feeling guilty, has now written a song about it. MI5 covered it up for him, and now to promote the single and assuage his guilt he's 'tipped off' Norman Baker, The Mail, Express and Scotsman to start creating hype among Labour-haters so they go out and buy his single.

 

[teqniq]

^^^

Can't believe this is still going on.... well, there again...

 

[editor]

Maybe they do,but don't want to speak publicly as they could have been threatened. (just 1 theory that popped into my head) Who knows,not us that's for sure

And your proof for this truly remarkable claim is..?

If your loved one had been murdered by the state, do you think you might have a word or two to say about it?

 

[editor]

How do you know what his family really think?

Or are you just going on their well revised statement for the press.

Let's recap the fact-free claims thus far: Kelly was murdered, the family are lying, Hunt is a high flying mason, the masons are all involved, the police and the government were all in on the murder, as were the pathologists and forensic scientists.

Have I missed anyone out from the sizeable gang of claimed liars, who are - miraculously - all faithfully keeping mum?

 

[xes]

And your proof for this truly remarkable claim is..?

If your loved one had been murdered by the state, do you think you might have a word or two to say about it?

Come on Editor,you know better than to chop a post in half like that.

The bit in brackets says that it's just a theory that popped into my head,but it is a possibility,and thus a true open minded person will hold that thought until it's proved to be one way or t'other. Like I say,I will entertain any theory that has plausable reason to be true. As in,I won't just shun an idea cos it sounds stupid,I'll listen to it and take aboard what's been said.

 

[kyser_soze]

Let's recap the fact-free claims thus far: Kelly was murdered, the family are lying, Hunt is a high flying mason, the masons are all involved, the police and the government were all in on the murder, as were the pathologists and forensic scientists.

Have I missed anyone out from the sizeable gang of claimed liars, who are - miraculously - all faithfully keeping mum?

And Thom Yorke has been involved as well, don't forget that.

 

[editor]

CThe bit in brackets says that it's just a theory that popped into my head.......

There's nothing wrong with that kind of thing, of course, except when those random, head popping ideas involve seriously defamatory allegations.

And this thread is stuffed to the brim with evidence-free, wild allegations directly accusing people of being complicit in a murder.

Can't you see the problem with that?

 

[xes]

There's nothing wrong with that kind of thing, of course, except when those random, head popping ideas involve seriously defamatory allegations.

And this thread is stuffed to the brim with evidence-free, wild allegations directly accusing people of being complicit in a murder.

Can't you see the problem with that?

Yes,I can see where that could get sticky for the site,but I'm not making any allegations as such,I'm just theorising possibilities.

I will desist if you think it could get the site into bother.

 

[fela fan]

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.

'Normally'?? I have a different understanding of how D notices operate, either i or you are wrong. I came to know that there is a D1 and a D2 notice, one of which indeed says nothing can be written about a particular story, while the other one lays down guidelines as to what can be talked about and the bits that can't be talked about.

I won't bet my house on me being wrong, but i think you need to find out a bit more about D notices.

If i were you i'd check again with your contacts. It looked all the world to me at the time that a D notice had told all editors to use the word 'suicide' to describe kelly's death.

Of course, in saying everywhere and every time that it was a suicide, that meant they could hardly discuss it as a possible murder.

 

[fela fan]

So why don't his family think that too?

After all, they knew Kelly better any of these armchair investigators.
Sccchhhhhhh!

Oh, you've interviewed the family have you? How in the world do you know what they think? You may have read things they may have said, but unless you know them well and have talked to them you have zero idea of what they think about kelly's death.

 

[fela fan]

My recollection of the initial coverage, and the initial comments by Thames Valley Police, was that it was being fully investigated as an unexplained death (i.e. in the same way as a murder) for the first few days at least, albeit there was rapidly a suggestion that it appeared to be suicide.

Well, that would make sense. It makes it all the more obvious that a D notice was issued in order to shut debate up. For media to talk about an unexplained death, and then a couple of days later to unanimously change their minds to it being a suicide indicates massive censorship.

What makes this form of censorship in britain so insidious is that it is voluntary and self done.

I suggest contributors to this thread go ask as many friends and colleagues as they know about D notices. I bet hardly anyone knows about them.

And, if people don't hear about something happening, then in effect it never happened!!

 

[fela fan]

You're talking shit again.

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.

Either i'm talking shit, or you are. I strongly suspect it's you. So, in order to show the forum you're not talking shit why don't you dig up some of this 'open debate' you refer to. And i mean from the time, not now. I was talking about a D notice at the time being issued in order to make the media consistently call it a 'suicide'.

But do feel free to show me the way to current debate that openly wonders if kelly was murdered by state agents. After all, you claimed that too.

Or are you blowing hot air?

 

[DrRingDing]

So you wouldn't mind posting up major articles in the current mainstream press that seriously questions Kellys 'suicide'?

Dear Editor,

Have you found many yet?

Hugs'n'kisses

DrRingDing

 

[editor]

Dear Editor,

Have you found many yet?

Have you lost the ability to search Google? Is your computer broken?

Here. Top result for "question dr kelly verdict". It took me all of two seconds.
New questions over death of David Kelly

Hugs'n'kisses

DrRingDing

Moron. Is this some kind of big joke to you?

 

[detective-boy]

I came to know that there is a D1 and a D2 notice, one of which indeed says nothing can be written about a particular story, while the other one lays down guidelines as to what can be talked about and the bits that can't be talked about.

They can certainly be used to distinguish different parts of a story, but I'm not aware of them getting down into such fine detail as specifying it must be "suicide" not "suspected suicide". This would amount to being a notice to piositively report/publish something (as opposed to NOT report something), which, again, I am not aware they can / have been used for.

 

[detective-boy]

Well, that would make sense. It makes it all the more obvious that a D notice was issued in order to shut debate up. For media to talk about an unexplained death, and then a couple of days later to unanimously change their minds to it being a suicide indicates massive censorship.

Or possibly it means the thorough investigation launched into an "unexplained death" has established sufficient evidence for the investigating officer to conclude that it is suicide (or, at least, that it is not some other things).

It happens all the time. I have done it many times myself - Day 1 piece to camera "I'm treating it as an unexplained death" ... Day 3 or 4 piece to camera "We have now established sufficient evidence for me to be able to say that there are no suspicious circumstances"".

 

[squeegee]

If you're in a newsroom and say you are suspicious of Dr Kelly's death, you will get much the same reaction you get on Urban. Now in Urban you can walk away, in a newsroom you would seriously compromise your position as a journalist. This is self-censorship. The editors set the parameters for a topic and they are regularly visited by top brass who help them set these parameters (anyone doubt this?). And it needn't be Tony Blair smooching up to Rupert. It is standard practice. Especially during a war. Can't compromise the security of the state. Ask no questions etc.

Stories about Dr Kelly questioning the suicide verdicct have appeared in the Guardian as well as the Daily Mail. The Mail, as mentioned, have their own agenda. But even after the doctors wrote a letter to the Guardian nothing was done about it.

Rather like the UN and Britain condemning the Israeli attacks of the last few days it seems suspected crimes can pass without recourse to law if enough influential people wish it so.

Michael Meacher in today's Guardian speaks about the increasing influence of the PM and the failure of the democratic process in recent years. But then he is a fruitloop, right?

The kind of evidence that would convince those who accept the pathologists report that Dr Kelly committed suicide, will be hard to come by because you would have to exhume the body, the family who understandably want to put all this behind them would have their painful memories raked through once again, so there is a great deal of inertia that sets in.

You would have to be as annoying and ready to upset everyone as the TV character Quincy. Now he annoyed the fuck out of everyone in pursuit of the truth. In real life it's unlikely that anyone would go that far out of their way. You have to upset too many people and if you work in journalism or in medicine it's rarely worth the risk, especially to follow a hunch that might turn out to be false.

Dr Kelly's death was convenient for the Government as paradoxically it deflected attention from the argument about WMD and was turned into a personal tragedy that then needed an inquiry which then didn't even deal with the question marks over Dr Kelly's death raised by the doctors who wrote to the Guardian.

Instead the same sombre tone was used to suggest that Dr Kelly's death was the result of unbearable pressure brought to bear on the man by the media, government and his own department. Yet no one was found to be singularly responsible.

Gilligan, who lost his job over the affair was castigated even though his report turned out to be correct (sexed-up dossier, no WMD) , it relied on assumptions made about T.Blair's intentions, which were not based on evidence, and thus as a journalist working for the BBC, this was considered bad journalistic practice.

This has now set a precedent meaning BBC journalists (and since they set a kind of journalistic standard all other serious journalists) are now hampered in following leads and hunches and have to be Urban-like in their devotion to pre-existing evidence before making any kind of accusation.

I do understand the need to be absolutely thorough but I do think that for journalists to function freely they should be able to work in an environment where such subjects can at least be discussed openly without fear of being called a loonspud.

That is not the case at the moment and it will not change unless those four doctors start watching Quincy re-runs and get inspired to be bigger ball-breakers than they already have been.

Yeah I know........

 

[editor]

Dr Kelly's death was convenient for the Government as paradoxically it deflected attention from the argument about WMD and was turned into a personal tragedy that then needed an inquiry which then didn't even deal with the question marks over Dr Kelly's death raised by the doctors who wrote to the Guardian.

So if you were going to knock off a high profile scientist who you believe was about to turn whistle blower, would you do it before he's had chance to have a private interview with a senior journalist, Andrew Gilligan and given evidence to two foreign affairs committee meetings or after?

And could you comment on why the government would want too silence him when he was parroting much of their line about WMDs and describing Saddam as an "immediate threat"?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3411073.stm

 

[sleaterkinney]

And could you comment on why the government would want too silence him when he was parroting much of their line about WMDs and describing Saddam as an "immediate threat"?

Because he was also telling jounalists that the government had put information out knowing it to be wrong.

 

[Plato1983]

The trouble with todays world is that there are so many conspiracy theories flying about left, right and centre.

What and who to believe is now the main issue that preoccupies the minds of those who take an interest in current affiars and politics.

I mean there are a million and one conspiracy theories about 9/11, Bin Laden, 7/7, Iraq, Iran, Israel and a whole load of other 'theories' on top on the Kelly incident.

I really do yearn for the day when we all return to rational and reasoned thinking and leave this fad of paranoia and desluions.

 

[editor]

Because he was also telling jounalists that the government had put information out knowing it to be wrong.

Yes. Worryingly wrong, but not, IMO, government toppling wrong - read the BBC link. And wouldn't you knock him off before he had chance to talk to any journalists rather than after?

<edit to correct emphasis>

 

[kyser_soze]

I really do yearn for the day when we all return to rational and reasoned thinking

When was that then? August bank holiday 1873?

There's never been a time when everyone has practiced rational and reasoned thinking - all conspiracy theories are is replacements for tales of devils and demons having a malign influence on humanity - the idea of the hidden controls, the unseen pulling levers...been around for CENTURIES mate...

 

[detective-boy]

Gilligan, who lost his job over the affair was castigated even though his report turned out to be correct (sexed-up dossier, no WMD) , it relied on assumptions made about T.Blair's intentions, which were not based on evidence, and thus as a journalist working for the BBC, this was considered bad journalistic practice.

That'll be the Gilligan who last week wrote an article in the Standard clearly stating that he thought Kelly HAD committed suicide would it?