Buddy Bradley said:
Most people, but, more importantly, all of the family, do not agree with you. Pay that some attention.
Paramedics doubt Dr Kelly's 'suicide' cause
- Thread starter Stobart Stopper
- Start date
Most people, but, more importantly, all of the family, do not agree with you. Pay that some attention.
There are contradictions in that report but, nothing to suggest murder.
Special Branch had been introduced to the investigation early on because of Dr Kelly's status and particular importance at the time.
Taking into account human error (aberrations of memory and powers of observation and description) and, considering we were a country at war by the time of the enquiry (certain information will not have been made public under any circumstances), I can't see anything to suggest murder. It all looks like suicide still to me.
I'm really not sure about DC Coe. Perhaps he is just stupid. I've met lots of incredibly dense, ignorant and self-important DC's
No idea how they get the job. Or, maybe he thought he was doing the right thing by not disclosing the identity of mystery man to the point of denying he ever existed. Like I say, very sensitive times during war. I'd like to think top secret stuff is kept top secret for good reason. It would be foolish to write off the possibility of murder by Iraqi forces at the start of the investigation.
The only possible reason I can think of for a government agent killing him is that, in theory at least, he could be a key witness in a war trial and he had already spoken out against the government. However, it's the winners that write the history books and rightly or, wrongly Blair and Bush along with all their cronies are extremely unlikley to ever face trial. And, even if they did, there would be a number of other key witnesses they'd have to knock-off.
Absolutely nothing to gain or, lose. Just a very sad suicide.
Special Branch had been introduced to the investigation early on because of Dr Kelly's status and particular importance at the time.
Taking into account human error (aberrations of memory and powers of observation and description) and, considering we were a country at war by the time of the enquiry (certain information will not have been made public under any circumstances), I can't see anything to suggest murder. It all looks like suicide still to me.
I'm really not sure about DC Coe. Perhaps he is just stupid. I've met lots of incredibly dense, ignorant and self-important DC's
No idea how they get the job. Or, maybe he thought he was doing the right thing by not disclosing the identity of mystery man to the point of denying he ever existed. Like I say, very sensitive times during war. I'd like to think top secret stuff is kept top secret for good reason. It would be foolish to write off the possibility of murder by Iraqi forces at the start of the investigation.The only possible reason I can think of for a government agent killing him is that, in theory at least, he could be a key witness in a war trial and he had already spoken out against the government. However, it's the winners that write the history books and rightly or, wrongly Blair and Bush along with all their cronies are extremely unlikley to ever face trial. And, even if they did, there would be a number of other key witnesses they'd have to knock-off.
Absolutely nothing to gain or, lose. Just a very sad suicide.
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
editor said:
They have probably been told to keep their gobs shut. Or paid lots of money to do just that.
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
Yes thanks, but I don't think I'll share them with you - you might start flinging around random nouns with '-tastic' added to the end, as if that somehow elevates the put-down to olympian levels...editor said:
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
Look, before you go off swearing at me and getting your y-fronts in a twist, why don't you borrow the book that I have lent to Mrs Magpie? I think she's finished with it. Nothing surprises me any more with this government, or the Americans, or any other for that matter. Read this book and then you might have a better understanding of how these people operate.
But you won't read it because you want believe everything you are told by the anti-conspiracy brigade.
But you won't read it because you want believe everything you are told by the anti-conspiracy brigade.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
The only thing 9/11 threads ever 'highlighted', as does this one, is your own lack of intellectual integrity and inability to debate in anything remotely resembling a 'logical' or 'adult' fashion.
Some inappropriately punctuated poncy rhetorical questions and a theatrical repetition of your own conjecture which you again pretend is my speculation, crowned with yet another half-witted attempt at a rhetorical question (Hey! You got the punctuation right!) and I can almost see a response!
So shall I paraphrase your shrieking into something intelligable for you? OK...
You suggest that a Detective Constable - trained to make accurate observations - 'got confused' about how many colleagues he had been wandering around the woods with, or 'forgot' his third un-named accomplis, and that this is 'a minor detail' presumably of no consequence, hence can be safely ignored.
That line of reasoning bears a striking resemblence to the official line.
Have I misrepresented your position here?
editor said: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?
Some inappropriately punctuated poncy rhetorical questions and a theatrical repetition of your own conjecture which you again pretend is my speculation, crowned with yet another half-witted attempt at a rhetorical question (Hey! You got the punctuation right!) and I can almost see a response!
So shall I paraphrase your shrieking into something intelligable for you? OK...
You suggest that a Detective Constable - trained to make accurate observations - 'got confused' about how many colleagues he had been wandering around the woods with, or 'forgot' his third un-named accomplis, and that this is 'a minor detail' presumably of no consequence, hence can be safely ignored.
That line of reasoning bears a striking resemblence to the official line.
Have I misrepresented your position here?
Stobart Stopper said:
This book casts doubt on Janice Kelly's integrity and dignity, does it?
Sorry, but editor is spot on. The suggestion that Mrs Kelly was "paid off" to remain silent on the causes of her husband's death is insulting, pathetic and unsupported by the evidence.
"My husband was let down and betrayed by the MOD"
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/202-3394283-2610248
OK< the title looks naff but it's the a good book.
OK< the title looks naff but it's the a good book.
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
rasputin said:
That was MY guess. No one else's. Just my speculation. If it HAS happened then I wouldn't be surprised.
rasputin said:
Perhaps Stobart Stopper thinks Mrs Kelly was only paid enough to stop her saying it was murder, but that the government saved itself some money by not paying her to stop her criticism of the MOD.
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
Counties police officers are notoriously, er, what's the word, laid back when it comes to their efficiency. There's no doubt about that. They just dont deal with the volume of crime that Met officers deal with and sometimes this makes them a little less on the ball when it comes to collating and giving evidence.
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
editor said:
Lets just nip this particularly *creepy* line of argument in the bud right here.
This is a favourite little tricky trick you try to pull on just about every thread where your feeble debating skills are laid so bare.
First, you invite SS to speculate regarding the family, then you seek to imply that by questioning the 'official version' of what the family have to say - and remember, their evidence was never released - her response is somehow 'morally insulting' to the family and that to discuss them is some sort of an affront to common decency, that it is a taboo subject for fear of upsetting or 'insulting' them.
How low can you get. Putrid emotional appeals to 'common decency'. Another weapon in your arsenal of logial fallacy. Ugh.
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
That's all very well, but isn't this why it's called a 'discussion board'? 
editor
hiraethified
So do you think it's even remotely likely that the family were "paid off" then?Backatcha Bandit said:
I'm not ashamed to say I find the suggestion leaves a very bad taste in the mouth, but I guess those desperate to find a conspiracy have no qualms about plumbing the moral depths.
editor said:
I suggest reading some books on forensics. A small amount of blood can cover a very large area. This is why it is damn near impossible to clean up after a violent crime. Blood can be detected many years in some cases decades at a crime scene no matter how much effort is taken to clean up.
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
How about this, then - a family deep in the grip of grief and despair were given an entirely plausible reason for their relative killing himself by an agency that many could not believe of ever telling porkies, and they believed it?editor said:
I agree, the suggestion that she was "paid off" is ludicrous - it would be much easier (and cheaper) to simply give her an alternative, believable, version of events which fits the facts.
Note - "fitting the facts" is not synonymous with "the truth".
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
If you're going to criticise Mike's punctuation, at least try and spell your own posts properly...Backatcha Bandit said:
Perfectly understandable that such a policeman might find himself wandering around the woods, just happen to be one of the first on the scene of a grisly national news event (coincidence of course), and completely forget what he doing or who he was with. Nothing to worry about. Move along now... look, Blanket's resigned!
editor said:
DrJazzz said:
Dr Jazz, please read the thread. The "suggestion" to which editor refers is that the family were "paid off" to remain silent about the possibility that Dr Kelly was murdered.
This implies that:
1. Somebody made the offer
2. The family accepted it.
The first is possible but unlikely in my view; the second, as I have already said, is deeply insulting to the family and makes no sense in the context of the inquest testimony provided by Dr Kelly's widow.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Are you seriously suggesting that he resigned in order to divert attention away from this thread?DrJazzz said:
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
I think if you re-read a little more carefully, DrJazzz was referring to the latter half of editor's post ("those desperate to find a conspiracy have no qualms about plumbing the moral depths"), and noting that it could equally well apply to the paramedics in question.rasputin said:
Similar threads
