Paramedics doubt Dr Kelly's 'suicide' cause
- Thread starter Stobart Stopper
- Start date
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Well, in fact it is possible to find out what he said to journalists such as Gilligan and we know pretty much what he did and did not know. And he doesn't seem to have said or known anything that many other people did not know and say.xes said:
You've got nothing.
And I'll tell you what, the Inquisition wouldn't have accepted the sort of evidence we're being asked to take seriously on here.TheLostProphet said:
Really.
xes
F.O.A.D
You mean apprt from my distrust. that's all i need taaJustin said:
Anyway,like you say,there is no evidence,and this is just going to keep going back and forth. What's the point in debating it,no-ones going to change their position on this. We all have our own beliefs on this. Based on evidence or a gut feeling. Mine the latter. It's my choice to belive what I do. It ain't going to change cos of meer facts and evidence
editor
hiraethified
Yes. And he was also under immense pressure as a result, especially after being officially reprimanded for his conduct:ill-informed said:
Seeing as the BBC was also saying lots of things that the government didn't like at the time, how come there wasn't carnage at Broadcasting House?
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
editor said:
ten characters...Masseuse said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
...in search of a theory?
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
It means your admin settings wouldn't let me submit a post with less than ten characters (quotes don't count as content). It wasn't a spooky nose-tapping reference to ten shadowy puppet-masters or anything...editor said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
You can do it with just a full-stop can't you?Buddy Bradley said:
Note that Masseuse's posting does not constitute an alternative scenario.
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
Ah, well in that case a tiny unrelated mistake on my part must prove it was murder...editor said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
They always make just one little mistake.Buddy Bradley said:
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
...which is why I also quoted Masseuse's retraction of the word 'scenario' - I agree that theory would probably be a more suitable word.Justin said:
The facts remain that:
1. Professional paramedics, used to dealing with suicides, publically and at risk to their reputations stated that what they saw did not strike them as being consistent with a suicide (i.e. lack of blood). They concede that there may have been other evidence that was unseen by them at the time.
2. Other professional academics, again at risk to their reputations, stated that neither the overdose or the wrist-cuts would have been sufficient to cause death.
3. There was not a proper inquest.
Given these facts alone, should Dr Kelly's death not be re-investigated?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Yes, but it ain't a theory either. It's some objections to an existing theory, but it is not a theory in itself.Buddy Bradley said:
I have no great objection but the trouble is that there's no evidence pointing in any other direction than suicide. So, for instance, in Deepcut it was possible to say "look, the evidence here is that somebody was shot twice in the head which is evidence of external agency". But what external agency do we have here? Not a lot.Buddy Bradley said:
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
If medical professionals are saying that Dr Kelly's injuries are not consistent with suicide (and furthermore are not even life-threatening), how is that not evidence of another direction than suicide? 
There doesn't have to be a man in the dock to have an investigation...
There doesn't have to be a man in the dock to have an investigation...
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Thing is, I don't think they are saying that. They're saying the evidence they individually have seen, aren't they?Buddy Bradley said:
Of course, but some alternative, er, scenario might be useful. And - at the risk of losing the will to live - I have to repeat that nobody's got a shred of evidence for any other cause of death.Buddy Bradley said:
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Indeed. Bizarre suggestion. As if all physicists were knowledgeable chemists or something.Idris2002 said:
I doubt that any more than a tiny proportion of people who take overdoses have access to reliable means or know how much of what they're taking would constitute a reliably fatal overdose. And that goes for educated people too. Including scientists.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
I very much doubt if we'll ever get to the bottom of this one.
It'll be doing the rounds forever on the internet and Channel 5 documentaries.
About the possibility that there might have been more blood under the body - the point about the severing of arteries seems to me to suggest that blood would have spread everywhere, and wouldn't have just collected under the corpse.
But like I say, we'll never know for sure.
It'll be doing the rounds forever on the internet and Channel 5 documentaries.
About the possibility that there might have been more blood under the body - the point about the severing of arteries seems to me to suggest that blood would have spread everywhere, and wouldn't have just collected under the corpse.
But like I say, we'll never know for sure.
Idris2002 said:
That's exactly it. Before Kelly died, I saw a programme (A US documentary on police forensics) which featured a case of death via arterial bleeding. It was commented that such cases all had one thing in common - blood absolutely everywhere. Imagine a hose that suddently springs a leak - the water flies everywhere. You are in little doubt as to what has gone on.
To suggest that four or five pints of blood were spilt neatly behind his back (with no-one subsequently noticing it) is pure hatstandery.
DrRingDing
'anti-human wanker'
editor said:
Would you refer to GWII as an "evil, evil conspiracy"?
Donna Ferentes
jubliado
Really? So when people cut their writsts in the bath - a common method of killing oneself - it sprays round the bathroom like the paintshop at Cowley? Or does it perhaps matter what particular cut is made?DrJazzz said:
DrJ bids us account for some missing blood. I would refer him to my earlier remarks concerning the experiment he may wish to perform with coloured water. Liquid has been known to seep into the soil. Indeed it is as well that it does so, since this phenomenon is the basis of all life on earth. Meanwhile I would bid DrJ account for his missing killer, missing murder weapon, missing cause of death, missing everything...
Justin said:
Hardly common. And very likely unsuccessful. But yes, it would spray around the bathroom, unless done underwater. Are you suggesting that Dr.Kelly had a bath delivered to the woods, slashed his wrists in it under water, then some helpful person whisked it away (with the five pints of blood in it)?
And yes it does matter what particular cut is made. The cuts to Dr.Kelly's wrists were not good enough for this particularly difficult method of suicide.
But you have said it all yourself - missing cause of death. To assume he bled to death because otherwise we just don't know how he died is more nonsense.
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
I think he was implying that the reasons behind our imminent war in Iraq was the conspiracy that Dr Kelly was involved in.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
I can barely believe this is sparking all this argument again. I thought the position was pretty clear.
On the one hand, we have some medical professionals, doctors previously and now paramedics, saying "from what I've seen of the evidence it seems dodgy". Fair enough. Perhaps in this situation a full inquest would be in order. Suicide isn't impossible but some of the public details are incomplete.
Of course, we're dealing with the government here, who aren't interested in telling us the truth for its own sake - they want to keep "public order" which means saying that he committed suicide whether he did or didn't - and because acceding to an inquest now would mean accepting that there was doubt, they won't.
On the other hand, there's a complete lack of evidence as to Kelly being tracked, assassinated, anything - even less than there is for a suicide. (The odd fruitloop suggesting that he was killed by French Iraqi commandoes or whatever it was excepted.) Moreover, to conclude that they must have had him killed, you have to presuppose that there was some awful secret that he hadn't revealed or written down anywhere or told anyone else that was just about to come out. There's no evidence for this either. The "pour encourager les autres" explanation doesn't wash, because there are so many other people who've said worse things and are still standing.
So basically nobody knows, and unless you were actually there or you examined the body or you were one of the people that Kelly told his awful unnameable secret, it's all complete guesswork and coming to any conclusion is unwarranted. There's an awful lot of pop psychology and medicine knocking about concerning what suicidal people do or don't do and what the evidence would have been if he had committed suicide, which is irrelevant because we don't know all the details and we won't. There are far too many possible variables for anyone in our position to make a decision.
Sometimes you have to suspend judgement barring future revelations and that's what I consider to be rational in this situation.
On the one hand, we have some medical professionals, doctors previously and now paramedics, saying "from what I've seen of the evidence it seems dodgy". Fair enough. Perhaps in this situation a full inquest would be in order. Suicide isn't impossible but some of the public details are incomplete.
Of course, we're dealing with the government here, who aren't interested in telling us the truth for its own sake - they want to keep "public order" which means saying that he committed suicide whether he did or didn't - and because acceding to an inquest now would mean accepting that there was doubt, they won't.
On the other hand, there's a complete lack of evidence as to Kelly being tracked, assassinated, anything - even less than there is for a suicide. (The odd fruitloop suggesting that he was killed by French Iraqi commandoes or whatever it was excepted.) Moreover, to conclude that they must have had him killed, you have to presuppose that there was some awful secret that he hadn't revealed or written down anywhere or told anyone else that was just about to come out. There's no evidence for this either. The "pour encourager les autres" explanation doesn't wash, because there are so many other people who've said worse things and are still standing.
So basically nobody knows, and unless you were actually there or you examined the body or you were one of the people that Kelly told his awful unnameable secret, it's all complete guesswork and coming to any conclusion is unwarranted. There's an awful lot of pop psychology and medicine knocking about concerning what suicidal people do or don't do and what the evidence would have been if he had committed suicide, which is irrelevant because we don't know all the details and we won't. There are far too many possible variables for anyone in our position to make a decision.
Sometimes you have to suspend judgement barring future revelations and that's what I consider to be rational in this situation.
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
The one where claims relating to Iraq's military capabilities were falsified or "sexed up" to make a strong case for war. You know all this, why insist on having everything spelled out?editor said:
Similar threads
