Paramedics doubt Dr Kelly's 'suicide' cause

[butchersapron]

Too close to home Idris. Shit like that don't count.

Gary Mills, Tony Poole - convicted of a police murder - there's hundreds more. Not a fucking peep out of them.

 

[Pickman's model]

anyway everyone knows that that fuckwit politician in the commons may as well have pulled the trigger himself and that collusion went from the top down. it's plain as a plantain apart from anything else.

 

[Idris2002]

I was just thinking of uncle Noam's point that the best conspiracy from a state point of view would be to spread fake conspiracy theories that would distract from what they're really doing.

I've also just had two pints of G. on an empty stomach.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Where's the 600-post thread about the killing of Pat Finucane?


Hmmmm?

Or this chap

 

[C S Lewis]

Just on the subject of conspiracy theories in general, with apologies for not having read the whole thread.

Have any of you seen this fantastic new documentary disproving all the JFK murder conspiracies.

Absolutely brilliant. First of all they show you the original film, and the various spurious arguments that people have constructed from it.

Then they use computer animated reconstructions of the actual event to prove that all this conspiracy nonsense based on the film is just pure hokum.
And their conclusion that when you consider the animated reconstructions there is no doubt at all that a lone deranged assassin called Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy is extremely authoritative.

Genius, I call it.

 

[Jazzz]

CS Lewis, I don't think anyone suggested that JFK committed suicide

That's material for another thread (or several) but more pertinently, have you any comments on the murder of Roberto Calvi, which our legal system covered up as suicide for twenty years, despite the obvious improbability of an old man hauling himself up the the middle of Blackfriars bridge to string himself up with a bunch of bricks in his pockets?

 

[C S Lewis]

Not a clue: He was probably murdered like Dr Kelly. Or maybe he never even existed, but was invented as an archetypal precursor or precedent setter in the covering up of state murder.

Why did you stick your tongue out at me, btw.?

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Interestingly enough, Kelly's mother also committed suicide

Just as interestingly from your link:

[Prof Hawton] told the inquiry that an individual who had a close relative who had committed suicide may be more comfortable with taking his or her own life but, equally, with "intimate knowledge of [its] terrible impact" might be less likely to follow suit.

.

Clever bloke, this Prof Hawton.

Prof Hawton, one of the country's leading authorities on suicide, told the inquiry he was "well nigh certain" that Dr Kelly committed suicide, and probably decided to do so on or after July 17. This was the day the scientist went out for his final walk, having emailed a friend about the stress he was under.http://tinyurl.com/5oacb

I wonder whether he 'probably' took that decision before or after the TVP investigation into the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death began at 2.30pm, at least an hour before he set off for that fateful walk?

Perhaps it was after he

wrote of "many dark actors playing games" in an email sent just hours before his death.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=425962

(Original email 11.18AM 17/7/03)

Yep, certainly sounds like he was stressed.

 

[Jazzz]

Not a clue: He was probably murdered like Dr Kelly. Or maybe he never even existed, but was invented as an archetypal precursor or precedent setter in the covering up of state murder.

Why did you stick your tongue out at me, btw.?

Because I knew your next post was going to be a load of smug nonsense

 

[C S Lewis]

How did you work that out?

What do you think I think?

 

[Jazzz]

Past form can be a pretty reliable indicator

 

[C S Lewis]

Well shit, I'm sorry, I don't know what bad experience you have of me. Do you think I'm taking the piss?

 

[editor]

Yep, certainly sounds like he was stressed.

You've never had a close friend commit suicide, have you?

If you had, you wouldn't post up such flippant, clueless bullshit.

I'm not going to go into personal details here, but take it from me: you're talking fucking shit if you think that that document proves anything at all. People can sound absolutely normal before committing suicide.

Why do you think his wife and his friends accepted the suicide verdict? Are you arrogant enough to think you know more than them or something?

 

[laptop]

Where's the 600-post thread about the killing of Pat Finucane?

Or this chap

Or Martin O'Hagan in Lurgan in 2001 or
Gyorgy Gongadze in Kiev in 2000?

It is plain that they were killed, and very possible in each case that the respective states wer involved. The interesting question in each case is who was involved in the respective conspiracies - but answering that requires hard work and logical capability. Sitting at a keyboard and going "what if..." doesn't have the same entertainment value if the "if" is no more exotic "it was C Company of the Red Hand Defenders, whose members are..."

So, I wonder: is the whole point of being a conspiracy theorist to be a member an epistemological minority? To proclaim a truth that no-one else recognises?

After all, you can't be a CTer if there's hard evidence for what you proclaim - where'd the fun be in creating unnecessary complexity if you were constrained by facts? It's like the little-known band of subjunctive trainspotters, who delight in enumerating the intricate details of locomotives that no-one will ever see.

Maybe I should experiment with an anti-conspiracy theory to see who picks it up. Gyorgy Gongadze beheaded himself.

 

[Jazzz]

Well shit, I'm sorry, I don't know what bad experience you have of me. Do you think I'm taking the piss?

I'm just sparring, don't take it too seriously.

 

[Jazzz]

Why do you think his wife and his friends accepted the suicide verdict? Are you arrogant enough to think you know more than them or something?

As stated before, you cannot simply say that his friends accepted the suicide verdict. I have already quoted Mai Pederson. Another colleague went on record too, though I don't see I need to chase the link up on your behalf.

You cannot simply keep repeating the same misleading statement in an attempt to establish it by force of repetition!

As for your appeal to emotion/authority, let's put it another way. You are insisting that we must all - rather than making our own minds up on the evidence we see judged in the light of our own experiences - believe what someone else appears to. Thought policing!

 

[Jazzz]

Or Martin O'Hagan in Lurgan in 2001 or
Gyorgy Gongadze in Kiev in 2000?

It is plain that they were killed, and very possible in each case that the respective states wer involved. The interesting question in each case is who was involved in the respective conspiracies - but answering that requires hard work and logical capability. Sitting at a keyboard and going "what if..." doesn't have the same entertainment value if the "if" is no more exotic "it was C Company of the Red Hand Defenders, whose members are..."

So, I wonder: is the whole point of being a conspiracy theorist to be a member an epistemological minority? To proclaim a truth that no-one else recognises?

After all, you can't be a CTer if there's hard evidence for what you proclaim - where'd the fun be in creating unnecessary complexity if you were constrained by facts? It's like the little-known band of subjunctive trainspotters, who delight in enumerating the intricate details of locomotives that no-one will ever see.

Maybe I should experiment with an anti-conspiracy theory to see who picks it up. Gyorgy Gongadze beheaded himself.

This is an interesting post.

It opens with conspiracy theories and theorizing, quoting two examples.

It then goes on to deride conspiracy theorists, although the poster is one by definition!

Conspiracies can and do happen and I think all on these boards accept that. Where people differ on which are true and which are the nonsense of 'conspiracy theorists' is simply down to which ones they believe are true or not.

 

[Lock&Light]

Where people differ on which are true and which are the nonsense of 'conspiracy theorists' is simply down to which ones they believe are true or not.

The real difference is the extent to which the actual evidence is considered and interpreted.

 

[editor]

You cannot simply keep repeating the same misleading statement in an attempt to establish it by force of repetition!

So are you saying that his wife and family didn't accept the suicide verdict?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Or Martin O'Hagan in Lurgan in 2001 or
Gyorgy Gongadze in Kiev in 2000?

Or indeed Larissa Yudina in Kalmykia in 1998.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

You've never had a close friend commit suicide, have you?

With all due respect, editor, Fuck You. You know absolutely fuck all about my personal life.

If you had, you wouldn't post up such flippant, clueless bullshit.

I didn't 'post up such flippant, clueless bullshit'. YOU did.

I'm not going to go into personal details here, but take it from me: you're talking fucking shit if you think that that document proves anything at all.

Again - YOUR article. YOUR 'expert'. Or are you bemoaning the fact that I refer to the original evidence presented to the trial? You don't make it particularly clear.

If it's the Original email from 11.18AM that you think doesn't 'prove anything at all' - which, incidentally, it quite obviously does, in that it proves Dr Kelly "wrote of 'many dark actors playing games' in an email sent just hours before his death" - perhaps you would like to take us through your logical process that leads you to believe (and post up) Prof Hawtons interpretation of it (as causing 'stress'), yet tell me that I'm 'talking fucking shit' for posting the original and agreeing with Prof Hawtons statement that it indicated 'stress'?

It's just another glaring example of the (il)logical gymnastics you are prepared to perform in order to piously swallow the official interpretation of the evidence, rather than read it for yourself and think for yourself.

Why do you think his wife and his friends accepted the suicide verdict? Are you arrogant enough to think you know more than them or something?

Are we creeping off down the Emotional Appeal Fallacy route again? I thought I'd dealt with that in post 498.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

After all, you can't be a CTer if there's hard evidence for what you proclaim - where'd the fun be in creating unnecessary complexity if you were constrained by facts?

I see where you're coming from here, Laptop...

May I counter that it isn't so much the 'hard evidence' that is being disputed, rather the interpretation of what the evidence indicates that is being - and bloody well should be - questioned.

It's classic filtering.

Take the example of this 11.18AM email about the 'dark actors playing games'.

I've just realised that it wasn't even Hawton that interprets it as indicating 'stress' likely to contribute to suicide - that's just tacked on the end of Hawtons statement by George Wright (the authour of the Guardian piece the editor quoted).

So I reject the filtered interpretations offered by the media, prefering to look at the evidence itself. For that, I get Cpt. Flapjack telling me I'm posting 'flippant, clueless bullshit' that 'proves nothing'.

So I'll repeat again - peoples unwillingness or inability to read the source docmentation for themselves and come to their own conclusions does not make those who do, then question the 'official' or media spoon-fed interpretation, 'conspracy theorists'.

What bothers me - and it really does bother me - is when we have gatekeepers like our esteemed editor here telling us that we shouldn't even question that interpretation, refusing to even acknowledge that there is anything to question.

When confronted with evidence such as the indisputable existence of ' the TVP investigation into the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death' which began an hour before Dr Kelly even left his house (almost nine hours before Mrs Kelly even reported him 'missing'), maintaining such a reluctance to even admit that there is anything to discuss leads me to seriously question the motives and intelligence that lead to someone taking up such a position.

This is what I mean when I say that 'There is no need for overt censorship with people like [the editor] on hand'.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Although Dr Kelly was not a member of the intelligence services he was in constant interaction with them.

His interview with Gilligan had put him in the public limelight. It also put him under a considerable amount of stress. From the many emails from friends and well wishers it's obvious that people who knew him were concerned.

You've even quoted an email yourself sent just hours before his death with the line 'many dark actors playing games'. That would give me cause for concern.

The Thames Valley Police investigation you state began 9 hours before his death. Wasn't this a record of information collected after he was reported missing to explain his whereabouts and actions leading upto his death?

I can't find the investigation start time. Even if it did start when he left his home as you suggest, I am perfectly willing to believe that he was under surveilance 24/7 for his own safety as much as anything else.

Just an altenative view. They're all worth considering if you're going to spend so much time studying Dr Kelly's death. Don't accuse others of misreading and accepting givens that aren't given if you can't keep an open mind yourself.

One other point that is worth bearing in mind is that witness statements were not given under oath. It's very understandable that individuals wouldn't want their statements and evidence made public also.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I can't find the investigation start time.

*Grits teeth*

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/evidence-lists/evidence-tvp.htm

Scroll down to 'TVP/10/0099 - 0105' where you will find:

TVP Tactical Support Major Incident Policy Book: Operation 'Mason' Between 1430 17.07.03 and 0930 18.07.03, DCI Alan Young - not for release - Police operational information

And no, I don't suggest it started 'when he left his home'. I'm pointing out that (acording to the evidence presented to the Hutton Inquiry) it started an hour before he left his home.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

And no, I don't suggest it started 'when he left his home'. I'm pointing out that (acording to the evidence presented to the Hutton Inquiry) it started an hour before he left his home.

Tar for link. Perhaps the 'dark actors' email prompted an investigation?

 

[Jazzz]

You've even quoted an email yourself sent just hours before his death with the line 'many dark actors playing games'. That would give me cause for concern.

Yes me too. It refers to the involvement of spooks in the affair.

I am perfectly willing to believe that he was under surveillance 24/7 for his own safety as much as anything else.

Too bad they just let him swallow a box of pills, slash his own wrists, and bleed to death without doing anything to help (except clean the grass). Must have taken a tea break I guess

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

Tar for link.

You are more than welcome, Stanley, as you were the previous three times I posted it.

Perhaps the 'dark actors' email prompted an investigation?

Perhaps, but to support such speculation we would have to forget that (according to Sue Reid writing in the Daily Mail on 3/6/04):

Thames Valley Police has told the Daily Mail that the Operation Mason file details their investigation into the circumstances surrounding Dr Kelly's death.

Even if TVP were lying to the Mail, or (as the editor suggests) the Mail were lying to us (perish the thought! ) regarding the nature of this 'Tactical Support Operation", then the question remains as to what other 'Major Incident' requiring 'Tactical Support' from TVP took place between the times specified.

 

[editor]

I'm still waiting for someone to describe how Kelly did die if it wasn't an act of suicide.

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

I'm still waiting for someone to describe how Kelly did die if it wasn't an act of suicide.

Then you will have a long and pointless wait.

Your incessant demands for conjecture and speculation are getting to be boring.

No matter how many times you choose to pretend that I already have, I will not conform to your demands for me to make up a nice piece of fiction for you, just so that you can tell me it's a story, demand 'evidence' and 'proof' for my speculation, then start sqealing about 'fact-free conspiracy theories'.

I'm not telling you a bedtime story. You're big enough now to read for yourself.

You might then be able to form an opinion on whether you agree or disagree with the simple proposition that the Hutton Inquiry findings are at least questionable.

I fear that you would still refuse to state an opinion, as to answer 'no' demonstrates that you are, in fact, more conservative, conformist and unquestioning than The Daily Mail; and a 'yes' demolishes your polemic and means the debate can move on to common ground, perhaps to discussing the basis of that questionability.

Where does your lack of an expressed opinion leave us? Unable to even estabilish a foot hold on the mountain of contradictions and discrepencies that make up the Hutton Report.

It's like we've gone climbing, I'm looking for the route up the mountain, yet I'm tied to the editor who is sitting on the ground disputing that there is even a mountain to climb.

Under normal circumstances, I could just cut the rope (by utilising the ignore function), but not in the editors case.

 

[editor]

Under normal circumstances, I could just cut the rope (by utilising the ignore function), but not in the editors case.

Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle, all delivered in the usual patronising pompous style. How tireseome.

Are you really unable to come up with an even remotely plausible explanation about how Kelly might have died if not by his own hand?

I'm not even asking for evidence, just something approaching a grown up, vaguely credible alternative explanation for his death and answers to these niggling questions:

Why did he take his pen knife with him?
How did he end up with digested pills in his stomach?
Why were his wife and family satisfied with the verdict?

For all your smug pontification, when it comes to stringing together a credible alternative to back up your conspiracy claims, you're running on empty pal.

(awaits usual personal insults instead of a relevant reply)