Paramedics doubt Dr Kelly's 'suicide' cause

[MrSki]

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.

Yes it could.

If you received threats about being found dead in the woods, would you go for a stroll in the park or the woods?

 

[editor]

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.

Right. So his family were, presumably, totally suckered by this 'propaganda machine', and the stress and pressure was totally non-existent?

So let's see what his close friend and his wife said at the time:

Dr Kelly has been under enormous pressure since he admitted making contact with Mr Gilligan. He was officially reprimanded for having an "unauthorised" meeting with a journalist, and recently complained that his home was surrounded by journalists...

A friend of Dr Kelly's, TV journalist Tom Mangold, said that Dr Kelly had told him he had been living in a 'safe house'.

Mr Mangold told ITV News: "She [Dr Kelly's wife] told me he had been under considerable stress, that he was very very angry about what had happened at the committee, that he wasn't well, that he had been to a safe house, he hadn't liked that, he wanted to come home.

"She didn't use the word depressed, but she said he was very very stressed and unhappy about what had happened and this was really not the kind of world he wanted to live in."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1000922,00.html.

 

[Jazzz]

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.

What a complete misrepresentation. I really tire of this; I would wish to ignore your rantings but I can't if you are going to do this.

NEVER have I said that people must leave suicide notes, etc. before committing suicide.

What I have noted is that lack of suicide notes/appearing in a suicidal state/emails sent saying looking forward to going back to work/appearing bright and cheery on his walk shortly before death - which is what we have with Kelly - is NOT evidence supporting a suicide theory although it may not rule it out.

 

[Jazzz]

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

Not the case. His prediction was made to Mai Pederson

...Mrs Pederson, a United States Air Force translator who worked alongside Dr Kelly in Iraq, refused to give evidence to Lord Hutton's inquiry.

But in a statement to police she said Dr Kelly had told her he would "never" commit suicide and that he feared he would be found "dead in the woods".

She rebutted speculation that she had been romantically involved with the 59-year-old married father of three, insisting their relationship was more like "brother and sister".

Mrs Pederson told The Mail on Sunday: "I told the police that the fact that he was found dead in the woods was not surprising.

"The fact that they said he committed suicide was."...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/260104didnotkillhimself.html

 

[Jazzz]

The crucial evidence if he bled to death, would be the blood! No-one has produced it! Everything else comes a big second.

This is all so much nonsense.

 

[hegley]

Again from the Observer article on the question of Kelly bleeding to death ...

In particular, one group of doctors has pointed to the fact that the pathology report into Kelly's death revealed that the only artery completely severed was in his left wrist, called the ulnar artery. This is not the normal main radial artery that is used to take a pulse, but a small artery below the little finger which is hard to locate and lies deep within the wrist.

Birnstingl said he believed it was 'extremely unlikely' for Kelly to have died by simply severing the ulnar artery. He explained that arteries have muscles around them that will constrict when severed, to prevent life-threatening loss of blood. 'It would spray blood around and make a mess. But after the blood pressure started to fall, the artery would contract and stop bleeding,' he said.

This is a view echoed by Dr Bill McQuillan, a former consultant at Edinburgh's Royal Infirmary who for 20 years has dealt with hundreds of wrist accidents. 'I have never seen one death of somebody from cutting an ulnar artery,' he said. He also pointed out that a warm bath might allow more bleeding, but in the open air the artery would simply close down. 'I can't see how he would lose more than a pint of blood.'

 

[Donna Ferentes]

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.

Posts like this annoy me because they try and look fair and reasonable by saying "maybe, maybe not" when in fact there is not one iota of positive evidence to back up one side of the argument. It's reminiscent of the way the Creationists argue these days, saying that evolution is one theory and Creationism another and they should both be taken seriously as theories - when in fact, there is no positive evidence whatsoever on the Creationists' side of the argument.

So, let's point it out again.

It's been claimed that Dr Kelly was killed. Nobody has any evidence at all to back this up. No weapon, no suspect, no nothing. it's also been claimed that there are people who regularly have other people killed for speaking against them. Enquiry has failed to produce a single name of anybody who has either carried out such killing or been killed in this way.

We do however know that Dr Kelly had a lot of tablets in him and that his wrist was slashed. This is, er, evidence of suicide. It may not be wholly satisfactory because forensic evidence never really is - it's not some exact science where everything can be reconstructed perfectly.

Now for all I know Dr Kelly was dragged from his home (why? by whom?) and had secret toxins injected into him while they also shoved 29 tablets down his throat and cut his wrists for him all to make it look like suicide, but we have not a molecule of evidence to suggest that any of this ever happened. And that's the problem with calling for enquiries and so on. Enquiries need to happen where there are differing accounts about what may have happened and evidence that appears to point in other directions from the official version. But here, there ain't none.

People who make wild allegations really need to back up what they say. Nobody's asking them to prove anything, just, you know, show us something that can be taken seriously. But they've got nothing here. As ever.

Incidentally, if DrJazzz wants to know what may have happened to the missing blood, can I suggest the following experiment? Pour six litres of coloured water onto the ground and see what happens to it. Preferably onto a grassy bank or something. And see what happens.

 

[DrRingDing]

Interesting and very eloquent post as ever.

Hahaha Dont think I haven't noticed you pinched that standard line from any right wing politician that comes unstuck by a good leftie. In fact Tony Benn seems to get that one everytime I see a debate with him. Shocking you.

 

[DrRingDing]

If you are going to kill yourself you will not do it in a middle of a muddy field, when there's some trees and a spinny near by.

And who ever was claiming that paramedics are not experts on suicide are patronising nobbers. Who's the first on the scene of a suicide pray tell? Who would notice an anomoly if there was one?

To the editor you were viciously opposed to anybody claiming it wasnt how the government portrayed it, even if he was prime for execution AND there was fishy cirumstances. and shocking you too.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

If you are going to kill yourself you will not do it in a middle of a muddy field, when there's some trees and a spinny near by.

Says who? I think you'll fnd many suicides take place out of doors. It's not full of people out there y'know.

 

[DrRingDing]

Says who? I think you'll fnd many suicides take place out of doors.

Where did I say people dont commit suicide outdoors?

I didnt so kindly take back those lies.

 

[editor]

Where did I say people dont commit suicide outdoors?

I didnt so kindly take back those lies.

Err, here?

If you are going to kill yourself you will not do it in a middle of a muddy field, when there's some trees and a spinny near by.

 

[editor]

To the editor you were viciously opposed to anybody claiming it wasnt how the government portrayed it, even if he was prime for execution AND there was fishy cirumstances. and shocking you too.

But that's a pile of bullshit, for sure.

I don't even understand your last comment either.

 

[DrRingDing]

Read the whole sentance.

Childish tactic.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Where did I say people don't commit suicide outdoors?

I didn't so kindly take back those lies.

The middle of a muddy field is pretty much as outdoors as it comes. Which was your point, was it not? People aren't going to do it out in the open where people can see them do it? But you have have missed that out in the open you and see whether anybody else is coming. When you're doing it, like. (And round where Dr Kelly did it, there ain't a lot of people coming and going, as it happens.)

 

[editor]

Read the whole sentance.

Childish tactic.

I don't see how reading the full post changes anything, but seeing as Justin or I are clearly guilty of misunderstanding your meaning, why don't you try again and explain it using words that are clearer?

What did you mean by: "If you are going to kill yourself you will not do it in a middle of a muddy field, when there's some trees and a spinny near by."?

 

[Masseuse]

Posts like this annoy me because they try and look fair and reasonable by saying "maybe, maybe not" when in fact there is not one iota of positive evidence to back up one side of the argument. It's reminiscent of the way the Creationists argue these days, saying that evolution is one theory and Creationism another and they should both be taken seriously as theories - when in fact, there is no positive evidence whatsoever on the Creationists' side of the argument.

Justin, I was not trying to look fair and reasonable, I was trying to be fair and reasonable. I do not know whether or not it was suicide or murder. I am not personally claiming there is enough evidence to prove a murder, though I am inclined, through my cynical view of government, to believe that they would do this.

We have a QC who is not satisfied that there has been a sufficient investigation into the case, and is concerned that potentially damaging evidence has been held back from the Hutton enquiry. We also now have two paramedics who have placed themselves in a very stressful and awkward situation by calling press conferences and giving statements which cast doubt upon the suicide story. They would not do this unless they had genuine concerns.

I don't think it helps to get into arguments about how people "would" kill themselves or what frame of mind they would be in. None of us can speak for Kelly and what was going on in his mind.

But I think the man deserved the dignity of a full and proper investigation. If we are being repeatedly advised to ignore witness statements before they are even investigated, if they are being rubbished before even being explored - then we have to ask ourselves why, don't we?

 

[DrRingDing]

Justin that nonsense and you know it.

It was a muddy field with a comfy spinny nearby, a stones throw away.

I'm saddened that you lot are so aggressively determined to even consider that someone may be executed for the oil in Iraq.

 

[DrRingDing]

What did you mean by: "If you are going to kill yourself you will not do it in a middle of a muddy field, when there's some trees and a spinny near by."?

I've highlighted to help you out.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I do not know whether or not it was suicide or murder. I am not personally claiming there is enough evidence to prove a murder

I know. But I'm pointing out that there isn't any at all.

Justin that nonsense and you know it.

It was a muddy field with a comfy spinny nearby, a stones throw away.

How does that affect my point?

I'm saddened that you lot are so aggressively determined to even consider that someone may be executed for the oil in Iraq.

No, I'm determined to retain sufficient common sense to observe that

(a) there is no evidence that Dr Kelly was killed by the government
(b) there was no reason for Dr Kelly to be killed by the government
(c) this government is not in the habit of killing people who disagree with them, even if they are seriously discomforted by their disagreement.

 

[DrRingDing]

And again as the debate has descended into wishful childish nit picking by the pro status quo liberals, I shall leave it here.

 

[editor]

It was a muddy field with a comfy spinny nearby, a stones throw away.

So what?

Are you suggesting that people never commit suicide in open fields or that they always have a preference for a 'comfy spinny'?

Any evidence to back this up please?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And again as the debate has descended into wishful childish nit picking by the pro status quo liberals, I shall leave it here.

Curious that to ask for some degree of rationality should make me "pro status quo"* - er, no - and a "liberal" (no).

Radicals should be able to muster better arguments than these, no?

[* = mind you, I did go and see them once. But it was 1981.]

 

[editor]

And again as the debate has descended into wishful childish nit picking by the pro status quo liberals, I shall leave it here.

You could, of course, try offering up some evidence to support your assertions, but there seems no chance of you doing that, does there?

And what the fuck is this 'liberal' bullshit?

How does wanting to see some evidence before believing exciting tales of murders and conspiracies brand me as a 'pro status quo liberal'?

 

[Buddy Bradley]

No, I'm determined to retain sufficient common sense to observe that

(a) there is no evidence that Dr Kelly was killed by the government
(b) there was no reason for Dr Kelly to be killed by the government
(c) this government is not in the habit of killing people who disagree with them, even if they are seriously discomforted by their disagreement.

Objection - conjecture. You are not in a position to claim the truth or otherwise of observation (b). Also as someone pointed out a couple of pages back, the UK government were complicit in various activities in Northern Ireland, so observation (c) doesn't really hold water either.

I agree with (a), though.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Objection - conjecture. You are not in a position to claim the truth or otherwise of observation (b).

No, it rests on the same foundations as (a), to wit that no-one has shown any reason why he should have been killed. There's an absence of evidence.

Also as someone pointed out a couple of pages back, the UK government were complicit in various activities in Northern Ireland, so observation (c) doesn't really hold water either.

Well, I'm aware of the UK state's record in the Six Counties and I'm aware that this is a venal and dishonest and arrogant government. But please, give me some names of people who the government has had killed because they disagreed with them (as was claimed higher up the thread).

 

[editor]

I would have thought that if Dr Kelly was murdered by a government in the habit of knocking off anyone who disagreed with them, they would have done so a long time before.

 

[Buddy Bradley]

Just because you're not aware of the any reason for Dr Kelly to be killed, doesn't mean there wasn't any - or do you think the government would run all such information past you first, just in case you were interested? My point was that you can't make blanket statements like "there was no reason" without being in full possession of the facts - and unless you're an MI5 spook, you're not.

Also, much like DrJazzz isn't allowed to get away with using 'facts' found on bizarre unattributed websites to support his arguments, you cannot come to the conclusion that the government has never killed anyone simply because nobody on an internet bulletin board can pluck names out of the air at a moments notice.

 

[editor]

Also, much like DrJazzz isn't allowed to get away with using 'facts' found on bizarre unattributed websites to support his arguments, you cannot come to the conclusion that the government has never killed anyone simply because nobody on an internet bulletin board can pluck names out of the air at a moments notice.

Has anyone actually made such a claim?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I would have thought that if Dr Kelly was murdered by a government in the habit of knocking off anyone who disagreed with them, they would have done so a long time before.

And as "they" are so all powerful you'd think that they would cover their tracks a bit better as well.

These new allegations are bullshit, just like every other bloody conspiracy-tastic idea out there.

And as for:

pro status quo liberals

pmsl