Paramedics doubt Dr Kelly's 'suicide' cause

[nosos]

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?

What possible basis is there for an argument to the contrary?

 

[nosos]

Dr J, why would it be in the interests of the government to murder Kelly? Surely the risks involved at the pre-Butler political juncture would have been too high? If any substantive proof was found, the fall out would be huge: is this potential risk really outweighed by evidence Kelly could have given? At most, I could see him loosely being able to give evidence Blair willingly decieved the Commons. That is to say evidence which already pretty much in the public domain.

 

[editor]

Dr J, why would it be in the interests of the government to murder Kelly?

If they suspected that he was going to blow the whistle on some enormo-government-crushing conspiracy, then why the fuck didn't they silence him before he spoke to BBC's Andrew Gilligan?

It makes absolutely no sense at all to kill someone to protect your secrets if it's after they've had a meeting with one of the world's biggest media outlets!

 

[nosos]

I agree entirely - it seems logically pretty unlikely that there was any motivation for murder let alone any evidence thereof - that said, there are bits to this case which seem odd: the absense of a further inquest, the family's compliancy with this and the question marks over the prcise medical evidence. I doubt there's any grand sweeping conspiracy going on behind the scenes but I do think part of this is being shielded from the public gaze.

 

[editor]

I doubt there's any grand sweeping conspiracy going on behind the scenes but I do think part of this is being shielded from the public gaze.

It's important to remember that the Oxfordshire coroner Nicholas Gardiner considered the case again in March 2004 and, after reviewing evidence that had not been presented to the Hutton Inquiry, decided that there was no need for further investigation.

Seeing as there appears to be not a single, solitary, nano-shred of credible evidence to support any of the exciting conspiracy theories floating about the internet, then there doesn't seem a great deal of purpose in re-investigating something that has already been the subject of an independent judicial inquiry and at least two post mortems.

Of course, if there was some credible evidence that suggested that Kelly was murdered, I'd be the first to demand an immediate investigation...

 

[Jazzz]

Dr J, why would it be in the interests of the government to murder Kelly? Surely the risks involved at the pre-Butler political juncture would have been too high? If any substantive proof was found, the fall out would be huge: is this potential risk really outweighed by evidence Kelly could have given? At most, I could see him loosely being able to give evidence Blair willingly decieved the Commons. That is to say evidence which already pretty much in the public domain.

Kelly was blowing apart the whole case for war. And who knows what further he was going or could have said? How can we presume to know? When he broke ranks he became a massive threat. He was at the top. He knew how the intelligence had been gathered/misrepresented, and was in a position to say so authoritatively. The canary had started singing.

Of course editor's suggestion that people who know dodgy stuff should be taken care of before they talk to the press and break the official secrets act would mean that the whole top tiers of the civil service would have to be bumped off!

I note that editor has not answered the question of whether he still really believes that Kelly bled to death.

 

[Lock&Light]

Of course editor's suggestion that people who know dodgy stuff should be taken care of before they talk to the press and break the official secrets act would mean that the whole top tiers of the civil service would have to be bumped off!

You don't half say some stupid things sometimes, Dr Jazzz.

 

[Stobart Stopper]

Of course editor's suggestion that people who know dodgy stuff should be taken care of before they talk to the press and break the official secrets act would mean that the whole top tiers of the civil service would have to be bumped off!

And some police officers, even high ranking ones.

 

[butchersapron]

"Of course editor's suggestion that people who know dodgy stuff should be taken care of before they talk to the press and break the official secrets act would mean that the whole top tiers of the civil service would have to be bumped off!"

"And some police officers, even high ranking ones."

Sounds like a good plan to me...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

editor/justin

Do you really, really still believe that he bled to death?

Yes, why not? I have no reason not to. I've dealt with the blood question many time already, all of which you have ignored. I've also asked you why he was taking an overdose if not to commit suicide, another point you have completely ignored.

it's not a massive leap to determent that he was murdered at the hands of person or persons unknown

It is of course a "massive leap" to decide this happened on the basis of no positive evidence whatsoever. Why do you keep doing this? Why do you reject things on the basis of confused or incomplete evidence, and then believe things on the basis of no evidence? I would like an answer to this question please.

And he himself feared being murdered... in the woods, no less...

What, he had some inkling as to where he was going to be murdered? How did he find that out? What are you talking about? Did somebody whisper to him "Dr Kelly, they're going to bump you off in a coppice"?

Kelly was blowing apart the whole case for war.

In what way was he doing this that many other people were not also doing? This is another question that you have been asked several times but will not answer. (Actually, in what way was he doing it full stop? You've still not told us what Dr Kelly specifically said that was no dangerous. Talking of which....)

And who knows what further he was going or could have said? How can we presume to know?

Given how many things you presume to know, I'd have thought you could have a shot at it.

When he broke ranks he became a massive threat. He was at the top. He knew how the intelligence had been gathered/misrepresented, and was in a position to say so authoritatively. The canary had started singing.

Can I note that these are all phrases without content. They are not facts. They contain no specifics. They contain no evidence. What did he know? What did he say?

DrJazzz, I have been trying to determine whether you are a liar or a fool and I confess I cannot make up my mind. There is plenty of evidence to support either contention. You make wild allegations and then refuse to support them with evidence. You refuse to answer questions that are put to you directly over and again. You do this over and over again. You are a tiresome and tedious waste of space.

 

[DrRingDing]

Even given the most conspiratorial interpretations of the Bilderberg Group, they would not give much of a shit about the internal machinations of UK politics unless it was in their interests.

Mr Magnet its not a fantastical conspiracy theory its fact. There are major players in in politics and business in the Uk who are key Bilderbergers. They control the press and in turn are able to control how many percieve the world and its mechanisms.

 

[editor]

Kelly was blowing apart the whole case for war. And who knows what further he was going or could have said? How can we presume to know? When he broke ranks he became a massive threat.

Seeing as he'd just had a long, off the record intrview with a respected BBC journalist, then why assume he was holding anything back?

Your 'he was knocked off' theory has many huge flaws, the biggest being the fact that it would make no sense at all to kill him after he'd completed a major media interview!

 

[DrRingDing]

Your 'he was knocked off' theory has many huge flaws, the biggest being the fact that it would make no sense at all to kill him after he'd completed a major media interview!

But you do not know what else he knew.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Mr Magnet its not a fantastical conspiracy theory it's fact. There are major players in in politics and business in the Uk who are key Bilderbergers. They control the press

Our problems with the word "evidence" now extend to the word "fact".

But you do not know what else he knew.

Nor do you. You've not got a single scrap to suggest he knew anything that would lead to them knocking him off. Not a scrap.

 

[tarannau]

What, he had some inkling as to where he was going to be murdered? How did he find that out? What are you talking about? Did somebody whisper to him "Dr Kelly, they're going to bump you off in a coppice"?
.

LOL. Best line of the day so far...

Besides, if Kelly was genuinely scared of being knocked off 'in the woods,' you'd think he'd be a little more reluctant to go on solo walks near trees wouldn't you?

Whilst the circumstances surrounding Kelly's death aren't ever going to be clear cut, I'm largely with Justin's reasoning here - what could Kelly have said that would be that different from what other experts (Brian Jones etc) could contribute? Why go to the risk of killing him - they seemed to be doing well enough by ridiculing him and ignoring his information.

Dr J's wish to see a conspiracy in every conceivable thing isn't going to go away unfortunately. Even if an inquest took place, I sincerely doubt whether its findings would be accepted as the final truth by some of the folk here.

 

[editor]

DrJazzz, I have been trying to determine whether you are a liar or a fool and I confess I cannot make up my mind. There is plenty of evidence to support either contention. You make wild allegations and then refuse to support them with evidence. You refuse to answer questions that are put to you directly over and again. You do this over and over again. You are a tiresome and tedious waste of space.

Sadly, you've summed up DrJ's conspiracy-tastic arguing tactics to a tee.

It's probably a good thing you weren't around during the Huntley trial as you would have might have got really, really frustrated and angry at his similarly groundless, wildly speculative authoritative claims about (ahem) 'what really happened'.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Dr J's wish to see a conspiracy in every conceivable thing isn't going to go away unfortunately. Even if an inquest took place, I sincerely doubt whether its findings would be accepted as the final truth by some of the folk here.

Besides, who'd want to be the coroner who might unwittingly reveal the truth to the world? You'd steer clear of coppices, that's for sure.

 

[DrRingDing]

C'mon we all know the coroner is a mason

 

[editor]

Besides, if Kelly was genuinely scared of being knocked off 'in the woods,' you'd think he'd be a little more reluctant to go on solo walks near trees wouldn't you?

He was anything but reluctant - in fact, he went directly there from his house and took along a pen knife he'd had since he was a kid.

 

[Relahni]

Did anyone really think he took his own life?

I certainly did not.

Weapons of mass destruction. 45 minutes til we all die!

Never believe a bullshitter.

 

[DrRingDing]

A Dr using a blunt, rusty and old pen knife!?

You take a penknife on a country walk not to top yourself with.

Surely any Dr would use a scalpel?

 

[editor]

But you do not know what else he knew.

Err, and neither do you. Or anyone else.

Government minister 1: "That Dr Kelly is dangerous! He's got secrets that could bring us down and crush the entire case for war!. He must be eliminated immediately!"

Government minister 2: "Definitely! I'll get our best invisible - but clumsy and bumbling - killers on the case"

Government minister 1: "But let's wait until he's had a long, off the record interview with one of the world's biggest media organisations first where he'll have every opportunity to spill the beans in full"

Government minister 2: "Great idea!"

 

[Loki]

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...

Have to admit that's a rather persuasive argument. That, coupled with the fact that the coroner found all that paracetamol in Kelly's stomache. How did it get there? You can't make a dead man swallow paracetamol. He must have taken it himself.

 

[editor]

Surely any Dr would use a scalpel?

Where would he get a scalpel from?

 

[DrRingDing]

Err, and neither do you. Or anyone else.

Government minister 1: "That Dr Kelly is dangerous! He's got secrets that could bring us down and crush the entire case for war!. He must be eliminated immediately!"

Government minister 2: "Definitely! I'll get our best invisible - but clumsy and bumbling - killers on the case"

Government minister 1: "But let's wait until he's had a long, off the record interview with one of the world's biggest media organisations first where he'll have every opportunity to spill the beans in full"

Government minister 2: "Great idea!"

Only a fool would believe MP's would be responsible for this.

 

[DrRingDing]

Where would he get a scalpel from?

I have a scalpel at home, and I expect a man of science such as himself to have one or at least have access to one.

 

[editor]

Only a fool would believe MP's would be responsible for this.

Oh right. So who was it then?

Substitute them for anyone else and the 'case' remains just as laughable.

 

[editor]

I have a scalpel at home, and I expect a man of science such as himself to have one or at least have access to one.

What a load of utter rubbish. Desperate rubbish at that.

Why should a 'man of science' have a medical scalpel at home?

 

[DrRingDing]

Substitute them for anyone else and the 'case' remains just as laughable.

So the military dont use violence as a tool then

 

[DrRingDing]

Why should a 'man of science' have a medical scalpel at home?

Why should a random urbanite have a scalpel at home?

At the very least you would choose a decent knife.