Paramedics doubt Dr Kelly's 'suicide' cause

[Donna Ferentes]

how the hell can we, joe public, be in a position to know that?

Then why make claims about things you can't possibly know? People are quite happy to make grand claims about what Dr Kelly was going to say. But then asked what he was going to say, they don't know, do they? Rather like priests who tell you what God's will is, and then turn around when you have a difficult question and say "who can understand the will of God?".

That's it!! there is the missing link!!! right,now all you non believers are up shit creek without a twaddle.

Er, no. The point is that there has not been a coroner's inquest presided over by a coroner. This isn't a cover-up, this is what would normally happen where a death was the subject of an official inquiry rather than a coroner's inquest. Hence the person presiding is a judge rather than a coroner.

 

[nosos]

he would not have been considered a threat until he had spoken unofficially to the press and proven he could not be trusted.

But what did he know that made him a threat?

how the hell can we, joe public, be in a position to know that?

Then is there any rational reason to believe that Kelly was bumped off by the government?

allowed.??? he wasnt, not in this case anyway.

In the sense that, as the theory goes, they bumped him off to stop him talking. Yet they allowed him to talk to the press.

how could they stop him talking to the bbc if thats what he wanted to do? are the MOD psychic now?

Er, no - are you defending the view that he was murdered? Cos if so, then your defenses are fucking shit; if not, then why are you asking me them?

one things for sure, he wont be talking to the bbc ever again, will he...! how convenient....

For gods sake! Argh!

 

[xes]

.Er, no. The point is that there has not been a coroner's inquest presided over by a coroner. This isn't a cover-up, this is what would normally happen where a death was the subject of an official inquiry rather than a coroner's inquest. Hence the person presiding is a judge rather than a coroner.

Er,no. i was taking the piss. Sorry

And will you please stop making me read this thread!!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Yes. Er, no.

Ha.

 

[xes]

ggrrrr

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Bet you looked

 

[Thumper Browne]

Magnificent.

Thanks you!

*takes a bow*

 

[zit]

But what did he know that made him a threat.

Then is there any rational reason to believe that Kelly was bumped off by the government?

i dunno, maybe he saw john prescott giving bliar a blowy in the girls toilets at bar zero one friday night...

all we know is that he was a trusted scientific expert who was causing the government problems so if any foul play is suspected, logically the government may be in the frame.

we can't exclude the government as prime suspects because we dont know what kelly knew and what the government were afraid he would blabb.

In the sense that, as the theory goes, they bumped him off to stop him talking. Yet they allowed him to talk to the press.

if you mean he was a person usually allowed to speak to the press, which he was (officially), then he was obviously someone who was very much trusted... no? if you dont mean that, then i dont get your point.

Er, no - are you defending the view that he was murdered? Cos if so, then your defenses are fucking shit; if not, then why are you asking me them?

no, im defending the view that we havent been told the whole truth and that foul play and murder can not be ruled out.

For gods sake! Argh!

i thought youd like that...

 

[editor]

I agree with you on this issue, Mike but this is exactly what I take exception to with your contributions on these threads: your insistance that only qualified people are able to hold valid views on these subjects. How qualified and authoritative are your views? Or do you rules of justification only apply counter-factually.

Err, but I'm not the one regularly making bold, authoritative, definitive claims to know the 'real truth' on a controversial subject without providing any credible evidence whatsoever or referencing qualified sources.

I've already expressed my opinion that the weight of evidence in this case makes me inclined to believe that Kelly was murdered.

The lack of a credible alternative motive and the complete absence of any hard evidence of third party involvement - along with the family's acceptance of the verdict - suggests that Dr Kelly did indeed take his own life.

If anyone's got any credible evidence to the contrary, let's see it.

 

[Pickman's model]

The lack of a credible alternative motive and the complete absence of any hard evidence of third party involvement - along with the family's acceptance of the verdict - suggests that Dr Kelly did indeed take his own life.

alternative to what? without spending more than a few seconds thinking about it i can think of a reason or three why someone might have wanted that turbulent scientist out of the way.

can't you?

 

[editor]

all we know is that he was a trusted scientific expert who was causing the government problems so if any foul play is suspected, logically the government may be in the frame.

Only if the government was in the habit of bumping off trusted scientific experts who cause them problems.

Have you any proof of that, then?

 

[editor]

alternative to what? without spending more than a few seconds thinking about it i can think of a reason or three why someone might have wanted that turbulent scientist out of the way.

can't you?

After he'd given a long interview to one of the world's biggest media organisations, no.

Door. Horse, bolted and all that.

 

[Pickman's model]

Only if the government was in the habit of bumping off trusted scientific experts who cause them problems.

Have you any proof of that, then?

weren't there a number of eminent defence scientists topped a few years ago?

 

[editor]

weren't there a number of eminent defence scientists topped a few years ago?

By the government? Really?

Please enlighten me with the facts.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

alternative to what? without spending more than a few seconds thinking about it i can think of a reason or three why someone might have wanted that turbulent scientist out of the way.

can't you?

Not really. Or rather, yes, if the government was in the habit of killing people who pissed them off. In large numbers. If every minor enemy of the government was marked for death. But that's not really the case, is it?

 

[Pickman's model]

After he'd given a long interview to one of the world's biggest media organisations, no.

Door. Horse, bolted and all that.

yeh. and do you recall the kerfuffle about what kelly actually meant? what he actually thought? after the interviews there was still some confusion about his beliefs and knowledge, which won't be satisfactorily cleared up because he isn't about to answer questions any more.

if he'd given one (well, two - don't forget the one he gave to susan watts) interview, what was there to prevent him giving more interviews or to stop him properly blowing the whistle?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I do remember it being very unclear what Dr Kelly had said that was supposed to be so damning. And nobody's managed to explain since. What did he say?

 

[Pickman's model]

By the government? Really?

Please enlighten me with the facts.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040823-124014-3141r.htm
http://www.the-scientist.com/1987/04/20/4/1
http://www.rense.com/general42/kellysdeathlinked.htm

and before you say anything about the last link, i included it because of the quote in it from a reputable source. also you may wish to recall the death of the supergun scientist turnbull. there's lots of stuff from dodge sites, and if i could recall the names of the scientists i'm sure that i could find a reasonable amount of material about it. i'll have another look later.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Hang on though, the first one - from the not-very-authoritative Washington Times - is basically about a bloke dying in Abu Ghraib this year.

 

[zit]

Not really. Or rather, yes, if the government was in the habit of killing people who pissed them off. In large numbers. If every minor enemy of the government was marked for death. But that's not really the case, is it?

could have been a special case with kelly for reasons unknown to us...

both you and the editor are saying that unless there are other known state murders then the governement cant be responsible for murdering kelly, which i dont agree with.

could be a one-off... its not like we wage war on a defenceless, sovereign country every day, is it?

 

[editor]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040823-124014-3141r.htm
http://www.the-scientist.com/1987/04/20/4/1
http://www.rense.com/general42/kellysdeathlinked.htm

Err, and how does this support your assertion that UK scientists were regularly being bumped off by the UK government in the UK?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

both you and the editor are saying that unless there are other known state murders then the governement cant be responsible for murdering kelly, which i dont agree with.

I'm saying it doesn't fit with any known facts. I can't say can't because you can't prove a nedgative, but for precious little other reason.

Why kill Kelly but not kill many other people?

 

[editor]

both you and the editor are saying that unless there are other known state murders then the governement cant be responsible for murdering kelly, which i dont agree with.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I am, however, arguing with people who are asserting that it's some kind of regular occurrence and that Kelly was just one in a long line of scientists bumped off for disagreeing with the UK government.

 

[zit]

ah, then i agree with you...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I have to say I can't remember the last instance of a deliberate premeditated political killing by the government or state agencies on the UK mainland.

 

[xes]

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040823-124014-3141r.htm
http://www.the-scientist.com/1987/04/20/4/1
http://www.rense.com/general42/kellysdeathlinked.htm

and before you say anything about the last link, i included it because of the quote in it from a reputable source. also you may wish to recall the death of the supergun scientist turnbull. there's lots of stuff from dodge sites, and if i could recall the names of the scientists i'm sure that i could find a reasonable amount of material about it. i'll have another look later.

I posted a link on page 4-5 or something,had a nice long list of scientists names. With reputable links to news paper articles.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And what a convincing case it wasn't.

 

[xes]

A list of missing/dead scientists http://seekers.100megs6.com/scientists.htm

There are more over the last 20 or so years. These are just since 9/11 (i do not hold any beliefs that the 2 are related,just that this is the link that I put up the other day)


I have a serious question to the people on this thread who think that conspiracies are all a load of bollocks. Do you not think that the government lie to us ever? or that there are such things as coverups? And also,that they would leave proof of their coverups? Surly that is their job,to not leave any proof.

Just a question that's crossed my mind before.

 

[xes]

And what a convincing case it wasn't.

What would make it a convincing case for you? signed doccuments by goverment officials that say "yes,I the undersigned,did unduly bump of all these scientists,but please dont tell anyone" ? Serious question.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I have a serious question to the people on this thread who think that conspiracies are all a load of bollocks. Do you not think that the government lie to us ever? or that there are such things as coverups? And also,that they would leave proof of their coverups? Surely that is their job,to not leave any proof.

1. Yes, they lie to us often.
2. Yes, there are cover-ups. But neither cover-ups not conspiracies tend to be very organised and watertight things. Moreover each become smore leaky as time goes on - more people find out, conspirators fall out with one another, the reasons for the cover-ups become less pressing etc.
3. Given how much proof they seem to leave around, I don't really understand the question. Unless it's the double-whammy I enjoyed earlier, i.e. "if there's no evidence it merely proves that they covered it up", which is fun but stupid.

What would make it a convincing case for you? signed doccuments by goverment officials that say "yes,I the undersigned,did unduly bump of all these scientists,but please dont tell anyone" ?

Well, some evidence that people were unlawfully killed might be a start. Having been hit by a car, for instance, doesn't really make it to the starting post.