"Did two hired assassins snatch weapons inspector David Kelly?"

Yes, he was dead. Are you saying every dead body is "evidence" of murder ...

And no-one has proved he "didn't commit suicide" - it's just the evidence is not 100% convincing.

It's well to follow D-B's maxim: "If you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, it's best to shut the fuck up"

Re Editor Post 150
There were quite a few DSTL scientists working on the same project that all met sticky ends a few years back a mate who worked on targeting systems for Digital told me, can't remember much of the detail will ask him over the weekend then elaborate.

Not a big fan of conspiracy theories and their threads, there are so nuts ones, though wouldn't be too surprised if someone did for Kelly but as with Kennedy assassination if there is an official cover up you have to have a thing for banging your head against brick walls to waste your time worrying about them.


There is some interesting stuff about the 7/7 bombers in State of Denial by Bob Woodward as I'm posting in one of these threads.

It is easy to leap to conclusions to fit what ever hypothesis you want as Editor rightly points out every time some someone wants to drag his boards towards conspiracy central. A good example the feather men I ended up with the sister car to the BMW mentioned in the book, but the owner of the car that had the accident (meant for an Ex SAS soldier as reprisal for activities in Middle East according to the book) himself had made considerable money middlemaning helicopter deals between US companies and Middle Eastern countries black listed by the US government...

Plus you get government departments specializing in counter intelligence that come up with conspiracies and misinformation to cover actual activities take Area 51

No. But it IS naive to think that only you and Jazzz have thought of the possibility ...

When the news first broke I posted to the effect that, due to the circumstances, Thames Valley Police would be making sure they didn't overlook anything in their investigation.

I think there's just a teensy-weensy chance that the thought "I wonder if he's been murdered" crossed the mind of the investigator at some point ...

No. They don't. They look at the evidence and decide if there is sufficient to provide a "realistic chance of a conviction". In other words they do have to form a view that there is "proof".

Yes, but it may not have been expedient to pursue that line of inquiry, going back a few years but then prominent politician Eric Miller managed to get an official verdict of suicide for shooting himself twice in the head with his revolver that needed cocking between shots. (But pretty sure UK agency wasn't responsible)

detective boy - Nope, it ain't proof until the jury says it is. Until then it's evidence. The CPS look at the evidence in its consideration of whether there's a realistic chance of conviction, not proof - obviously not a sematic point.

I made three posts in this thread and you're already trying to personalise it; it's about me and my "clinging" and my "made up mind", etc.

Not interested.

Partly because at the time they weren't "murders", the authorities said they weren't.

Found it

ENough detial on this page to do a trawl

Ah, yes I remember your faith.

The problem is it turns out that that investigation has extraordinary shortcomings! By your argument it can only have been corrupted, no?

from my last link:

source

Oh Eddie Baby,

Your insistence that nothing relates to Kelly and the hard line of revocation only acts as an impetus to the broader minded and, dare I say, better read than yourself.

Try some of the early Chapmen Pincher books, Nigel West, follow names like Angleton, try Golitsyn's revelations, Peter Wright's banned book...for example,... whilst, as you continue to state, no relevance to the Kelly murder, sorry suicide it will give an insight to the capability of the state to carry out nefarious and illegal crimes.

You would have us believe that any reference or link to the words Kelly and Murder are totally alien to reality, the convience and timing of his death, the manner in which the media became aware are all just hyperbole.

Whilst you are adamant that it was not murder, and DB would have us believe that we are incapable of adding two and two and he is the only person with a calculator,

Gentlemen, the forum is open to you to prove it was nothing more than suicide because at the moment you are offering nothing more than your own opinions and the words of the possible perps. Your attempts to deride and cast aspersion to anyone with a different opinion undermines the validity of your chosen opinion.

Its more likely that it will be more than 30 years before the matter is more than idle speculation (and not so idle by some). How long did it take to come out that Rasputin never survived a webley bullet between the eyes?

Certainly he was treated badly, if I had to chose who did more to disarm Iraq Kelly or whoever gave the "Walter Mitty character" description I'd chose Kelly. Did he lose his pension that week as well? Though the Cherie Blair signed copies of the Hutton Report on eBay (was that typical of her?- didn't have an eBay account) the closest thing to an inquest he got, tasteless to say the least. But his wife accepted it, and that counts for alot. Given that he worked for the State, it is hard not to see his employer as at least partially implicated in his death, I hope his widow has been suitably recompensed

My point was that the CPS require sufficient evidence to consider there to be a realistc chance of a conviction (which could be abbreviated as sufficient evidence for proof) as contrasted with your assertion which was they only needed sufficient evidence for a case to answer, which is less and which could be summarised as "sufficient evidence that a properly directed jury could convict".

Another twat who misrepresents what I say ... what IS it with you lot?

Can you not see the words I post about how the evidence for suicide is anything but convincing ... but it is a damn sight more than the evidence for anything else? Or can you not read them? Or do you simply mentally edit them out due your prejudices?

Absolutely nothing, though you asked about politically motivated murders masquerading as suicide. I know you asked for by the government. Personally think you need only have to go as far as a government before the government sometimes covers-up, how would foul play by person or persons unknown help anything?
I don't do deathrays, and I only came across that article today which does provide enough factual detail and point to other other more credible sources (hence used word trawl) never checked out what this bloke was telling me before (one of those late night pissed round a table discussions), but given their occupational similarities, am actually more comfortable with that than I was, more comorftable than with his story about the Kursk anyway.

Is this semantics, are you going to point to an earlier post number by someone else?ETA Or just drop the suicide bit cos Northern Ierland scarred history probalby has a few

So all the suicides in that link were suicides because the obsessive compulsive who compiled the list in the link includes mention of a death ray theory he considers outrageous, or as he also states a statistically anomalous coincidence?

This is a circular arguement on your part.

I just love the derogatory comments , another twat, Or can you not read then?

Oh, yes, I can read, but I can also think of the possible interpretation with a little more freedom of mind then you care to apply.

It must be very nice to sleep at night in the knowledge that nothing is happening out there that you can't explain.

Let's consider the Stalker investigation in Northern Ireland, or was that a simple abberation of the truth, you can duck and dive and shift responsibility but the onus of proof to substain a verdict of suicide lies with the Establishmenrt.

The arguments against the movemnt of the body, the sudeen and unexplainable presence of a DCi...

Well, come on guys, lets hear the argument for the suicde verdict.

Or is it just a playground argument of I'll show you mine if you show me yours?

You obviously haven't got the faintest idea about the role of the inquest either... no-one has to "prove" anything. The evidence is sought and then a verdict is reached based on that evidence - the burden of proof for a verdict would probably be similar to the balance of probabilities in civil law.

I'm not saying that suicide is "proved" (nor have I ever, this is the bit you misrepresented) - I'm saying that on the basis of the evidence such as it is, it is the most likely answer. And I'm saying that none of the "evidence" of murder that Jazzz or you produce is worthy of the title.

Sometimes (quite often actually) it is simply not possible to know the truth of what happened - there simply isn't the evidence there to prove it and, often, there never was the evidence to find though sometimes a better or more thorough or prompt enquiry may have found it. But every time this happens you lot simply go "Conspiracy!!". If you what to live in the real world without giving yourself a breakdown, you really must learn to live with the fact there are some things we simply cannot know.

I think the words you are missing : on the evidence supplied.

Suffice to say, a decision was reached on ' teh evidence supplied' , now was this all the relevant evidence or even sufficient evidence to possible raise questions as to the exact course of the Inquest.

With the utmost respect, perhaps you could elucidate on the representation of the legal profession at a straight forward Inquest.

you really must learn to live with the fact there are some things we simply cannot know.

The simple answer to that is, WHY