Paramedics doubt Dr Kelly's 'suicide' cause

[Jazzz]

Actually, they've said that there could have been more bleeding (under the body) as stated by one of the pathologists but they didn't see it as they weren't in attendance when the body was moved.

Try not to exaggerate, DrJ. It really doesn't help.

Don't patronise me, twit.

When Kelly died you were vociferously ridiculing the suggestion that he may not have committed suicide. In fact, you banned two or three posters who dared to confront you on the subject! One of them, kcblue, did absolutely nothing to deserve it whatsoever, and it was the most shameful piece of adminstration to date I've seen here.

Now, the paramedics of vast experience have spoken out, and done so in front of their lawyers that the bled-to-death suicide theory is a load of pish.

 

[DrRingDing]

If a government agent was employed to fake a suicide, surely they would have had the right training to leave everyone in absolutely no doubt?

well they done a good enough job for and the editor, didnt they?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Now, the paramedics of vast experience have spoken out, and done so in front of their lawyers that the bled-to-death suicide theory is a load of pish.

Actually the paramedics haven't said that. If you watch the interview they accept that the evidence may very well point to suicide but that the evidence they pesonally saw - which they completely accept is just one aspect - doesn't in itself support the conclusions that have been come to. They do not rubbish the suicide theory.

People who want to talk about evidence and other people needing to answer questions want to have a far better idea what "evidence" actually is and be able to understand the meaning of answers far better than they do.

 

[Jazzz]

oh read between the lines... PLEASE

Of course the paramedics can only comment on what they saw. What they didn't see was six pints of blood sprayed all over the place.

Given that they have witnessed many attempts at such suicides (only one of which was successful) and with all of those having blood all over the place, you have to conclude that he didn't bleed to death.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

oh read between the lines... PLEASE

Ah. You mean "decide that people are saying things that they haven't actually said"?

But I'm going by things they have actually said. Like giving a list of evidence that may very well exist but which they themselves accept they haven't seen.

 

[editor]

When Kelly died you were vociferously ridiculing the suggestion that he may not have committed suicide. In fact, you banned two or three posters who dared to confront you on the subject! One of them, kcblue, did absolutely nothing to deserve it whatsoever, and it was the most shameful piece of adminstration to date I've seen here.

Can't even be bothered to debate the above pack of lies.

You didn't actually hear what the paramedics said in the TV interview, did you?

 

[editor]

But I'm going by things they have actually said. .

Good advice! So listen up, DrJ:

One said - and I quote -: "I'm no medical expert" and then went on to say that another pathologist claimed that there was more blood underneath the body but seeing as they weren't there when the body was moved, they don't know the full story.

Your enthusiastic attempt to twist and distort their statements to support another of your conspiracy-tastic 'conclusions' remains as tedious as ever.

You mean "decide that people are saying things that they haven't actually said"?

That's how the good Dr generally works!


(my cock up corrected - ta Justin!)

 

[Jazzz]

Ah. You mean "decide that people are saying things that they haven't actually said"?

But I'm going by things they have actually said. Like giving a list of evidence that may very well exist but which they themselves accept they haven't seen.

What they have said is quite good enough to discredit the theory that he bled to death. I see no reason why it can possibly be considered.

Obviously, they are being careful to comment on their part of the affair, which means limiting themselves to what they saw and their conclusions from it. So what?

They may admit some technical possibility that all six pints of blood were hiding somewhere, but clearly, they don't think for an instant that he bled to death, and rather that something very smelly is going on; or why go to all this trouble of making sworn statements in front of lawyers and calling press conferences?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

What they have said is quite good enough to discredit the theory that he bled to death. I see no reason why it can possibly be considered.

Well, the paramedics do, which makes it rather hard for you base your disbelief on what they said.

clearly, they don't think for an instant that he bled to death

This isn't true.

why go to all this trouble of making sworn statements in front of lawyers and calling press conferences?

Now that is a good question, but it's only a question, and you can't go round constructing theories out of it. I'd suggest that they don't think the matter was considered with sufficient openness, which it certainly wasn't, and that they feel that this meant that conclusions were come to to swiftly, which they undoubtedly were. And not just by the inquest, I should say: there were others who came to "Dr Kelly was murdered" conclusions far more swiftly and with a great deal less eivdence. (Were you one of them?) Because we should remember that there is not a single shred of evidence to support any theory of Dr Kelly's death other than suicide. Not one.

 

[tobyjug]

Having just seen the paramedics being interviewed on BBC TV news and at least two coroners just after the event commenting there were aspects they were unhappy with, I think at the very least there should be a thorough investigation. (Which there has not been thus far).

 

[Jazzz]

Because we should remember that there is not a single shred of evidence to support any theory of Dr Kelly's death other than suicide. Not one.

Yes there is!

- The man is dead. Because he is dead, if he didn't commit suicide or die of natural causes he was likely murdered.

- He didn't bleed to death - for the blindingly simple reason that there's no blood.

- A close friend testifies that he couldn't swallow tablets. In any event 29 coproxamols (which there is little evidence he took) isn't a fatal dose. This friend also testifies that he claimed he would never commit suicide, yet that he may be 'found dead in the woods'.

- No-one ever saw him in a suicidal state, and he was clearly of extremely sound mind.

- His body was mysteriously moved at the scene of death after first being discovered and no-one has admitted to moving it.

- He was a 'whistleblower'.


This is just off the top of my head.



Now, it is my opinion that he was murdered. Always has been. But it's the job of a proper coroner's inquest to determine that. Kelly never had one. So much for the proper hearing of evidence - Kelly didn't have it. He had a farce of an inquiry instead which just rubber stamped the suicide theory.

 

[Major Tom]

Now, it is my opinion that he was murdered. Always has been. But it's the job of a proper coroner's inquest to determine that. Kelly never had one. So much for the proper hearing of evidence - Kelly didn't have it. He had a farce of an inquiry instead which just rubber stamped the suicide theory.

I think this is the important point here. while i haven't decided in my mind that Kelly was definitely murdered, I always suspected so. But when the authorities fail to go through normal procedures and act as if there is something to hide, then they're providing perfect material for the conspiracy theorists. The same thing's happening with Deepcut at the moment, I just don't understand why governments cover up like this. Unless they really do have something to hide of course.

 

[Balbi]

Forgive me for intruding, i've been merrily reading along while at the same time attempting some tinfoil origami. Theres just one thing that bothers me slightly about the whole thread, the fact that precious few care and of those that do, their credentials as sources are suspect to say the least.

DrJazzz, do you honestly give a shit? If so, what are you going to do about it?

 

[xes]

Well,I've allways had my doubts about Kellys' death. I just do not and can not trust anything slightly dubious that the government tell me. They lie through their teeth,that i do know. I see this as nothing unusual from them. So fuck em.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The man is dead. Because he is dead, if he didn't commit suicide or die of natural causes he was likely murdered.

Right. So no actual evidence then. No suspect, no nothing. Not a shred. You do not have evidence for a theory because you doubt other theories ,This is why your postingds are so empty. You go on and on about "questions" and "evidence" but you show no sign whatsoever of understanding what evidence is. And no matter how often people say this to you, you don't change at all.

He didn't bleed to death - for the blindingly simple reason that there's no blood

Once again, you don't know this. We know the paramedics have said they didn't see enough blood. We also know that they've conceded that this doesn't mean it was never there. But it doesn't suit you to deal with this, so you don't.

A close friend testifies that he couldn't swallow tablets.

Really? Found it hard to, or actually, physically, couldn't swallow something as small as a tablet? I can tell you that when people take overdoses they do, generally do things that they normally would not do. That's what oversdoses are, y'see.

No-one ever saw him in a suicidal state, and he was clearly of extremely sound mind.

Does yet another person have to tell you that this is not unusual? And if so is there any prospect of you listening? You clearly know very little about the subject. Sometimes, people who kil lthemselves had given other peoploe reason to think that it was likely. But very often, it comes completely out of the blue. (I would refer you, for instance, to Kay Redfield Jamison's Night Falls Fast for an expert discussion of the subject.)

His body was mysteriously moved at the scene of death after first being discovered and no-one has admitted to moving it

Oh aye?

He was a 'whistleblower'.

Was he? He spoke to journalists and disagreed with some of the government's statements. So have lots of people.

This is just off the top of my head.

You're not kidding.

Now, it is my opinion that he was murdered.

How? Who by? Tell us? But you won't. You'll do what idiot conspiracy theorists always do, which is to refuse to accept evidence in which (as is perfectly normal, by the way, for evidence of most things) there are gaps and small inconsistencies. And you'll put, in its place, something for which you have absolutely no positive evidence at all. And you'll say you believe that quite happily without further examination.

Schiller had a phrase for peope like this. Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.

 

[Masseuse]

Forgive me for intruding, i've been merrily reading along while at the same time attempting some tinfoil origami. Theres just one thing that bothers me slightly about the whole thread, the fact that precious few care and of those that do, their credentials as sources are suspect to say the least.

DrJazzz, do you honestly give a shit? If so, what are you going to do about it?

I actually think the above post is a perfect example of why conspiracy theories are not needed and don't really constitute a threat to the dominant ideology. Because a vast amount of people are too stupid, too scared, and too fucking lazy to give a shit about a section of people who set themselves up as our leaders and manipulators and go around killing people who speak up against them.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

go around killing people who speak up against them.

Another one for Schiller.

Who "goes around" doing this? Which people who spoke up against them have they had killed recently?

 

[Masseuse]

How? Who by? Tell us? But you won't. You'll do what idiot conspiracy theorists always do, which is to refuse to accept evidence in which (as is perfectly normal, by the way, for evidence of most things) there are gaps and small inconsistencies. And you'll put, in its place, something for which you have absolutely no positive evidence at all. And you'll say you believe that quite happily without further examination.

QUOTE]

No Justin - what YOU are doing is taking a quote completely out of context in order to make a cheap shot. The quote was a simple statement of his position - presented as subjective truth and not objective fact - and followed by these words:

Always has been. But it's the job of a proper coroner's inquest to determine that. Kelly never had one. So much for the proper hearing of evidence - Kelly didn't have it. He had a farce of an inquiry instead which just rubber stamped the suicide theory.

Which, of course, was the crux of Dr Jazzz's argument in that particular paragraph - which you decided to just ignore in favour of taking the easiest way to have a pop.

There have been a lot of good points raised in this thread by both sides I think. I've felt a bit like that bloke in the Fast Show who agrees with everyone all the time. But the most noticeable thing is how there seem to be two belief systems operating, both defended very rigorously by various people - but both are driven by a weird kind of blind faith in what they want to believe. I think the defenders of our government's virtue in this matter are kidding themselves that they are being objective - just as I'd be kidding myself about my own objectiveness. There is a deep-seated need to believe in something here being displayed on both sides - and as such I think there are elements of truth on both sides.

But it's interesting, isn't it, that the "official", "right-thinking person's", "sensible" version of events always fucking corresponds with the governments version of events (in which, of course, they are never implicated). And anything other to that version of events immediately gets filed in the "tin-foil hattery" box. Because people hate being ridiculed they tend to keep quiet about holding certain mocked views. Brilliant way to stifle discussion.

 

[Masseuse]

Another one for Schiller.

Who "goes around" doing this? Which people who spoke up against them have they had killed recently?

Well you know what Justin, I'm not familiar with the ways of the security services so I'm not too sure I could tell you exactly who. But I have a feeling you know what ball park we're in. David Kelly was alleged to have given information to journalists which discredited certain aspects of the justification for the invasion of Iraq. It may not be the case that he was killed in order to stop him shouting his mouth off any further. It may be that it was really suicide. Things like inquests may have helped us determine which it was. Shame they didn't think it was necessary.

My point was to the bloke who couldn't really understand why anyone gave a shit. I just found that sentiment so profoundly fucking stupid. People give a shit because if the suicide verdict turns out to be wrong it is evidence of state fucking murder. Which is something we maybe should give a shit about.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

...
But it's interesting, isn't it, that the "official", "right-thinking person's", "sensible" version of events always fucking corresponds with the governments version of events (in which, of course, they are never implicated). And anything other to that version of events immediately gets filed in the "tin-foil hattery" box. Because people hate being ridiculed they tend to keep quiet about holding certain mocked views. Brilliant way to stifle discussion.

Interesting and very eloquent post as ever. But, who are the 'right-thinking people'?

Personally, I have no doubt that people are 'knocked-off' by the state. I don't think this is the case in this instance though. All the evidence points to suicide. Very sad.

I'm more than willing to listen to evidence to the contrary but, there just bloody well isn't any!

I would even willingly listen to an argument that stated that the government wanted it to be known that they kill people who don't keep their mouths shut. There is absolutely nothing in this thread that brings me to question the very sad suicide of a man under incredible public pressure.

 

[tobyjug]

I'm more than willing to listen to evidence to the contrary but, there just bloody well isn't any!

QUOTE]

The problem being without a proper inquest no one knows whether there is or isn't any evidence. The two paramedics don't seem very happy about the suicide verdict and paramedics have somewhat more experience of being the first independent people on the scene of suicides than most.

 

[Masseuse]

I would even willingly listen to an argument that stated that the government wanted it to be known that they kill people who don't keep their mouths shut. There is absolutely nothing in this thread that brings me to question the very sad suicide of a man under incredible public pressure.

Well that's where we are looking at the story through the filters of our respective belief systems then. Because I see enough evidence being presented to at least put the official suicide story under significant pressure. What has emerged thus far is not definitive proof - and no-one has presented it as such - but it is certainly information which casts doubt upon the verdict of suicide. Two experienced medical personnel, both of whom had previously attended suicides, have indicated that what they saw was not congruent with a suicide. Normally, in any other suspicious death - one that was not so politically sensitive perhaps - the eye witness accounts of these people would be deemed fairly influential to the case. Why the rush to downplay their statements here?

 

[Stanley Edwards]

I'm more than willing to listen to evidence to the contrary but, there just bloody well isn't any!

QUOTE]

The problem being without a proper inquest no one knows whether there is or isn't any evidence. The two paramedics don't seem very happy about the suicide verdict and paramedics have somewhat more experience of being the first independent people on the scene of suicides than most.

Where is the info about the amount of drugs in his body coming from?

A man is found dead with his wrists slashed. He has recently acted in breach of a government confidentiality agreement. It's known to all that he was feeling under pressure. His family (the people who knew him best) accepted his death was suicide.

 

[editor]

But the most noticeable thing is how there seem to be two belief systems operating, both defended very rigorously by various people - but both are driven by a weird kind of blind faith in what they want to believe.

I just get fed up with DrJ's habit of declaring that the knows the 'facts' when his conclusions are based on anything but fact.

His bizarre insistence that suicidal people always announce their imminent departure from this life with some sort of public display of erratic/depressed behaviour is provable horseshit of the highest order: yet still he keeps repeating the same nonsense, as if brainwashed by his conspiracy-tastic beliefs.

 

[tobyjug]

I just get fed up with DrJ's habit of declaring that the knows the 'facts' when his conclusions are based on anything but fact.

His bizarre insistence that suicidal people always announce their imminent departure from this life with some sort of public display of erratic/depressed behaviour is provable horseshit of the highest order: yet still he keeps repeating the same nonsense, as if brainwashed by his conspiracy-tastic beliefs.

Quite, suicide notes and erratic behaviour beforehand are the exception not the rule.

 

[Masseuse]

This picture has been painted of him being some kind of fragile personality, some sort of loose cannon, under "incredible pressure". I don't seem to remember this picture being painted by the people who actually knew him. It was painted by the propaganda machine.

You know what, this is all getting a bit abstract isn't it?

Think about what you would want if it was your wife, your husband, your child, your neighbour. Who did not appear to be suicidal, even appearing "jolly", but who had access to sensitive government information, and worried about "being found dead in the woods" - and then is found dead in the woods in suspicious circumstances.

You'd want a fucking inquest wouldn't you?

Or would you be content being told that there was nothing to worry about, nobody getting away with murder. That they have explored all possible avenues of information?

No fucking way.

 

[MrSki]

Think about what you would want if it was your wife, your husband, your child, your neighbour. Who did not appear to be suicidal, even appearing "jolly", but who had access to sensitive government information, and worried about "being found dead in the woods" - and then is found dead in the woods in suspicious circumstances.

Surely his prediction of "being found dead in the woods" was a hint to his suicidal thoughts?

Or did he knowingly go to meet his killers?

I have meet a few people who have appeared "jolly" & are dead the next day.

Is the original thread not archived?

 

[tobyjug]

Surely his prediction of "being found dead in the woods" was a hint to his suicidal thoughts?

It could just as easily been a threat he had had.
One more male civil servant being found hung, dressed in womens clothing and surrounded by pornographic magazines would have been a bit obvious.

 

[Firky]

wrong thread!

*gets coat*

hungover init

 

[nuffsaid]

<Sitting on fence, puts oar in>

I do remember reading at the time that there were discrepancies in peoples reports on finding his body and that it seems someone may have moved him before the paramedics in question saw the scene. So these paramedics probably didn't see the true state of Dr. Kelly when he died, (so therefore more blood could have been under him, or not where the paramedics were looking).

But there's still lots of controversy about the death.

There's a blog here about Kelly, http://deadscientists.blogspot.com/

<Pulls oar out, wobbles on fence>.