Paramedics doubt Dr Kelly's 'suicide' cause

[Backatcha Bandit]

That looks a bit wobbly the way it's quoted here. Can you link to all info in it's original context please?

**********INSULTS DELETED************** The names of the individuals quote are listed down the right hand side of the page you linked to! Alphabetically!

***Sarky 'choo choo' comment deleted****

Chapman

Coe

Holmes


***Further sarky comment deleted***

(See your edit, but other might like the links )

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Not particularly. But I distrust conspiracy fans even less.

Right.

Define 'conspiracy fan' please.

Then maybe go and answer my questions:

So, what's the coherent, credible theory for this discrepency? There are,in fact, no less than FIVE witnesses that testified that Coe had TWO companions.

Why was DC Shields not called to give evidence?

And what were Coe, Shields and the Mystery Man doing there in the first place, since they were apparently not part of the official search team?

Except you won't, will you. Because when it comes to rational debate, I've grown vegetables that outclass you.

 

[fela fan]

OK, but what exactly would the state have gained from murdering him? Could they have decided to kill him out of panic, or on general principles?

Oh, i so wanted to get to the end of this thread before replying, but i cannot.

If kelly had been allowed to get his full story out, blair and his government would have fallen. And then sure as hell, so would the bush government have followed suit.

It was imperative that kelly be silenced.

None of us know for sure, but i'm certain to my own satisfaction he was bumped off, and my bet is that it was the USG that had it happen.

 

[fela fan]

Mind you, i didn't know there were 19 pages of it!

 

[Stobart Stopper]

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble believing that 5 pints of blood would completely cover a normal sized house (not that I'm sure what the point is seeing as most of Kelly's blood would have escaped into the porous earth).

Have you a source for this claim please?

It probably would, can't go into details but my husband has seen 5 pints of blood, or more and it is alot. I will ask him when he gets back but I think Tobyjug is correct.

 

[Lock&Light]

Define 'conspiracy fan' please.

It's not easy to define a conspiracy fan, though the following is the sort of thing they post:

"Oh, i so wanted to get to the end of this thread before replying, but i cannot.

If kelly had been allowed to get his full story out, blair and his government would have fallen. And then sure as hell, so would the bush government have followed suit.

It was imperative that kelly be silenced.

None of us know for sure, but i'm certain to my own satisfaction he was bumped off, and my bet is that it was the USG that had it happen.

 

[fela fan]

Well lock, good to see you sticking to your guns.

To my mind, i'm not sure what a conspiracy theorist is. But i do know that those that actually conspire are those with power who need to protect their power. Since i have no power, i have nothing to protect.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

**********INSULTS DELETED************** The names of the individuals quote are listed down the right hand side of the page you linked to! Alphabetically!

***Sarky 'choo choo' comment deleted****

Chapman

Coe

Holmes


***Further sarky comment deleted***

(See your edit, but other might like the links )

***deleted immaturities wisely ignored***

I'm going to read through this report in full chronological order in time.

The inconsistency you quoted and linked to is a howler but, there are also some other more subtle ones. Maybe I'll read an explanation later on in the enquiry.

On a more general note, it was widely believed by the public that the war was illegal anyway. The spin and hype ensured Bush was re-elected regardless.

I don't think either government had anything to gain with the electorate by killing Dr Kelly. They would both still manage to retain power through control of the media.

Is there any other reason you can think of for killing him? I can think of one.

I still believe it was suicide for a number of different reasons. Keeping an open mind though.

 

[Stobart Stopper]

Is that to do with other information that Kelly gave to Gilligan? Information that has never been reported in the papers?

 

[Loki]

Oh, i so wanted to get to the end of this thread before replying, but i cannot.

If kelly had been allowed to get his full story out, blair and his government would have fallen. And then sure as hell, so would the bush government have followed suit.

It was imperative that kelly be silenced.

None of us know for sure, but i'm certain to my own satisfaction he was bumped off, and my bet is that it was the USG that had it happen.

Agree there are some grey areas... Nobody has fully explained how Kelly died... he didn't ingest enough paracetamol and the cut inflicted to the ulnar artery wouldn't normally result in death (see here for example).

But I can't see why the govt would bump him off after (as the ed pointed out) he had already given a candid interview to a BBC journo. And besides scientists collaborate and share information; he can't have been the only one to have any damning information.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Is that to do with other information that Kelly gave to Gilligan? Information that has never been reported in the papers?

No. Purely hypothetical conjecture. I'm just interested to see what reasons people come up with.

 

[fela fan]

I don't think either government had anything to gain with the electorate by killing Dr Kelly.

It wasn't about what they had to gain, rather what they had to lose.

 

[editor]

Except you won't, will you. Because when it comes to rational debate, I've grown vegetables that outclass you.

Oh dear.

I can't be arsed to waste my time with such moronic abuse. I'll leave you to your toytown Sherlock Holmes fantasies and who knows - maybe one day you'll produce something that remotely resembles hard evidence.

You've produced nothing - and I mean nothing - that proves Kelly was murdered, or even suggests he was. Nothing at all. You haven't even assembled a credible motive.

 

[fela fan]

But I can't see why the govt would bump him off after (as the ed pointed out) he had already given a candid interview to a BBC journo. And besides scientists collaborate and share information; he can't have been the only one to have any damning information.

But loki, which is the bigger question: why would the government wish to bump him off vs why would he want to kill himself?

 

[editor]

If kelly had been allowed to get his full story out, blair and his government would have fallen.

Right. And your proof of this amazing claim is...what, exactly?

 

[editor]

But loki, which is the bigger question: why would the government wish to bump him off vs why would he want to kill himself?

Read the thread. You'll find ample reasons why he may have chosen to kill himself.

 

[Lock&Light]

Right. And your proof of this amazing claim is...what, exactly?

It's all down to his instinctiveness, I believe.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

No. Purely hypothetical conjecture. I'm just interested to see what reasons people come up with.

I think SS is refering to an email sent by Gilligan to Greg Simpson (Lib Dem) on 14/7/03:

Above all he [Dr Kelly] should be asked to say what kind of a threat Iraq was in September 2002 ... If he is able to answer frankly it should be devastating

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence/fac_6_0002.pdf

 

[fela fan]

Right. And your proof of this amazing claim is...what, exactly?

Aha, that refrain of yours crops up again... how you love that word 'proof'.

If everything was prooved, where would debate and your web site be eh?

 

[fela fan]

Read the thread. You'll find ample reasons why he may have chosen to kill himself.

There are also no doubt ample reasons why he should have been killed. I still think it was the work of the US, not the UK.

 

[editor]

If everything was prooved, where would debate and your web site be eh?

Hopefully with a lot less bonkers fruitloop "9/11/Huntley was innocent" drek.

 

[editor]

There are also no doubt ample reasons why he should have been killed. I still think it was the work of the US, not the UK.

I don't suppose you have even the slightest grain of anything even remotely approaching proof to support this assertion?

No. Of course not. You just 'know' the truth, don't you?

 

[fela fan]

I don't suppose you have even the slightest grain of anything even remotely approaching proof to support this assertion?

No. Of course not. You just 'know' the truth, don't you?

Still demanding proof, tut tut. Very poor debating style.

Hey, guess what, if i had proof (whatever that is) then i'd be able to bring down the blair government... ah what a nice thought.

Me, know the truth? Hardly, I know my truth, but beyond that, nothing mate.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Oh dear.

My thoughts exactly. You are obviously incapable of addressing any of the points I have raised with regard to the discrepancies between Coes statements and those of five other witnesses.

I can't be arsed to waste my time with such moronic abuse.

Well, that's pretty funny, as you appear to be spending a lot more time concentrating on my 'moronic abuse' than actually debating any of the points. Duh.

I'll leave you to your toytown Sherlock Holmes fantasies and who knows - maybe one day you'll produce something that remotely resembles hard evidence.

So highlighting the discrepancies - indeed, breaking them into little bite-sized chunks that even a child could digest - from the original source fails to 'remotely resemble hard evidence'?

I'm asking you direct questions regarding discrepancies in the transcripts, quoting from the transcripts, and this is a 'toytown Sherlock Holmes fantasy'? You're a funny guy! Not a particularly bright one, it seems, but mildly amusing.

You've produced nothing - and I mean nothing - that proves Kelly was murdered, or even suggests he was. Nothing at all.

There you fucking go again! You just can't help it, can you? I have not speculated at all regarding the nature of Dr. Kelly's death - and I won't engage in speculation with you around, because the second I do you start shrieking for 'proof' and 'evidence' to back up such speculation!

In fact, as I don't engage in speculation, you just go right ahead and pretend that I have, as evidenced so clearly above!

Jesus fucking Christ. You have to be the most intellectually dishonest entity I have come across - and that's saying something, considering the multitude of unarmed freepers I've engaged in a battle of wits.

You haven't even assembled a credible motive.

Credible in your eyes, I presume? Ho, ho, ho.

Now, either take a crack - go on! SPECULATE! - at why the discrepancies occur, or fuck off and stop wasting my time with you inconsequential, intellectually challenged witterings, playground rhetorical questions and oh-so-predictable and boring ad hominem attacks (going on about 'huntley' again for fucks sake).

Go on. Do you think Coe was telling the truth?

See. I can do polemics if I try.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Another discrepancy between the evidence given by Chapman and Holmes (the 'search team' people) and DC Coe occurs regarding the position of Dr. Kelly's body as discovered.

The search team have it that he was 'slumped against the bottom of a tree' or 'sitting up against a tree'.

Whereas DC Coe has it 'laying on its back - the body was laying on its back by a large tree'.

Perhaps some here are happy to dismiss such contradictions as minor details, perhaps if it were the only contradiction from DC Coe I might be tempted to join them, but it isn't.

Personally I find that for such an Inquiry to seemingly ignore such stark contradictions brings into question the integrity of those commissioned to conduct it.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

You've produced nothing - and I mean nothing - that proves Kelly was murdered, or even suggests he was.

But several things that suggest he didn't commit suicide. Yet he's dead. How odd.

 

[editor]

Not a particularly bright one, it seems, but mildly amusing.

You have to be the most intellectually dishonest entity I have come across - and that's saying something, considering the multitude of unarmed freepers I've engaged in a battle of wits.

And it's back to the insults again!

Shame you don't live up to your own, highly inflated opinion of yourself.

Gosh, it must be so jolly exciting being able to uncover the real truth about Dr Kelly's death from the comfort of your armchair and knowing that your superior intellect means that you're always so amazingly right all the time!

Just like, err, the 9/11 threads where your amazing investigative powers proved, err, absolutely nothing at all, apart from highlighting your impressive ability to patronise and pontificate.

 

[editor]

But several things that suggest he didn't commit suicide. Yet he's dead. How odd.

Really? So what do these 'several things' suggest really happened?

 

[editor]

Now, either take a crack - go on! SPECULATE! - at why the discrepancies occur, or fuck off and stop wasting my time with you inconsequential, intellectually challenged witterings, playground rhetorical questions and oh-so-predictable and boring ad hominem attacks (going on about 'huntley' again for fucks sake).

Imagine! Minor discrepencies in eye witness reports!

Who'd ever heard of such a thing!

That must surely prove beyond all doubt that Kelly's death was murder most foul because eye witnesses never, ever get confused, forget minor details or miss out things, do they?

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Really? So what do these 'several things' suggest really happened?

They suggest that he didn't commit suicide. Do pay attention.