Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

MP to investigate Dr Kelly's death

to be fair, if someone gave you a coroner's report to autograph, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume they were a lunatic and to_do_whatever_they_say
 
Stobart Stopper said:
Why did she even sign it? It's like the Commissioner signing a copy of the report into the De Menezes inquiry isn't it? Same thing.

I dunno, although I suggested a theory. Odd, innit?
 
siarc said:
to be fair, if someone gave you a coroner's report to autograph, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume they were a lunatic and to_do_whatever_they_say
Well there is that interpretation, I suppose.

Another theory is that she was just bored in a meeting or something, so she was signing her name to see whether to call herself Cherie Booth or Cherie Blair. I still don't know which of those is her name. When she is acting as a lawyer, she seems to be known as the former.

ooh, I wonder which of her names was on the report.

Also, do we know if it was an "autograph", or a signature, or just her writing her name? I know nothing.
 
Silly me - what was I thinking?

I will go back to beliving the official version of everything without question otherwise I will be tarrred as conspiraloon - becasue believing that Kelly death seems pretty fucking dodgey clearly means I also believe that lizards flew hologramic planes into the World Trade Centre.

If it was suicide it was an odd one - choice of death unusal and hard to make suceed, and this from a well educated man who, although not a medic, surely had enough knowledge to kill himself in a easier, more painfree way (hose on exhaust pipe etc).

Its perfectly plausible that he was topped - certainly as plausible as the suicide verdict.
 
Kaka Tim said:
Its perfectly plausible that he was topped - certainly as plausible as the suicide verdict.

There are plenty of plausible reasons to think it was suicide, yet no plausible reasons for anyone to want to kill him. (After he'd already spoken to reporters)
 
Lock&Light said:
There are plenty of plausible reasons to think it was suicide, yet no plausible reasons for anyone to want to kill him. (After he'd already spoken to reporters)

Cos he knew more than he'd already told? His interviews to reporters were clearly of the 'tipping a wink' variety rather than full and frank disclosure.

And what he'd said so far was off the record and his exposure meant he was about to go on record.

Kelly could have been very very damaging to the government, he could plausibly have shown that they deliberately lied about WMD - which would have been a resignation issue for Blair.

None of us know anything for certain.

I remember John Snow on Channel 4 news, maybe a year after his death, asking a gov spokesthing if Dr Kelly was the source who had discredited the 'secret' evidence of WMD in an internal intellignce report. This was the WMD evidence that supposedly won over some MPs imeediately before the war, whose source was protected (for 'security reasons') and was suddenly withdrawn by MI6 as 'unreliable' some 18 months after the war (although I believe TeeJay was still relying on it until a year ago) . I dont remember all the details but I remember my ears pricking up at the mention of Dr. Kelly - clearly John Snow (hardly a lizard botherer) seemed to suspect that Kelly knew more than he'd told to reporters.
 
Kaka Tim said:
And what he'd said so far was off the record and his exposure meant he was about to go on record.

It might just help your arguments if you tried to get the facts right. Kelly had not only spoken off-record.
 
Lock&Light said:
It might just help your arguments if you tried to get the facts right. Kelly had not only spoken off-record.

Hang on - he was the 'unnamed source' for Gilligan's article about '45 minutes'.

How the fuck is that not 'off record'?

And, yes, Im sure often spoke 'on-record' but being far more circumspect.
 
Kaka Tim said:
Hang on - he was the 'unnamed source' for Gilligan's article about '45 minutes'.

How the fuck is that not 'off record'?

And, yes, Im sure often spoke 'on-record' but being far more circumspect.

I seem to remember that Kelly appeared in front of at least two committees of inquiry. Of course he was then also circumspect. As are all civil servants when asked to appear before a committee of inquiry.
 
fela fan said:
They told you this did they?

Don't you think they would have said the opposite if they thought the opposite was true?

Oh, no. Of course. They were all afraid that they'd be next to be bumped off. How could I have overlooked that?
 
editor said:
But they'd surely know far, far more about Kelly's state of mind and the full facts of the case than bedroom truth seekers, no?

I can't speak for them, but if I lost a loved one in such circumstances and thought something dodgy had gone on, I'd move Heaven and Earth to get to the bottom of it, and couldn't care whose cage I rattled on the way.

I'd probably find your suggestion that they were too 'profoundly disturbed' to bother fighting for the truth more than a little insulting too.

Pah, you display such naiveity sometimes editor.

His wife knows the game. Her husband is killed, she can't do anything about it, she can only keep quiet, play the game, so that her daughters aren't killed, so that she can keep the rest of her family. You think she (or you) can take on the state? You're in dreamland mate.

You can't speak for them you say, but you always end up doing so.
 
Col_Buendia said:
I'd be grateful if you don't go putting words into my mouth, for I did not suggest that "they were too 'profoundly disturbed' to bother fighting for the truth".

Could you please just acknowledge that? Thanks. Because I find people putting words into my mouth "more than a little insulting".

Unfortunately colonel, it's a trademark of his debating style. I cop it all the time.
 
fela fan said:
Pah, you display such naiveity sometimes editor.

His wife knows the game. Her husband is killed, she can't do anything about it, she can only keep quiet, play the game, so that her daughters aren't killed, so that she can keep the rest of her family. You think she (or you) can take on the state? You're in dreamland mate.

You can't speak for them you say, but you always end up doing so.

For God's sake. fela. Get a grip! :eek:
 
Kaka Tim said:
Its perfectly plausible that he was topped - certainly as plausible as the suicide verdict.

I'm afraid you're wrong there kaka! It's a certainty he was killed. This suicide nonsense is exactly that, nonsense.

The likes of editor are quick to deride those they call 'conspiraloons' (amongst a burgeoning lexicon) for believing lizards and stuff, yet they seem to believe all this guff the state tell us is the truth.

Kelly was killed. Probability? 99%.

Nah, make it 100%
 
Lock&Light said:
There are plenty of plausible reasons to think it was suicide, yet no plausible reasons for anyone to want to kill him. (After he'd already spoken to reporters)

You're deliberately being blind.

He had enough information to bring down blair.

And that would have brought down bush.

The man quite simply had to be killed.
 
editor said:
After he'd spoken to the press, yes?

Wow. That sure makes a lot of sense.

Because.

Any more from him, and blair was going to hit some big problems. And that would have led to bush having the same problems since they were in bed together over the illegal war they waged.

But anyway, we could look at it another way: what a marvellous stroke of luck for blair (and bush) that kelly should decide to kill himself, just at the perfect time too!

How lucky can a leader get, eh?!
 
editor said:
After he'd spoken to the press, yes?

Wow. That sure makes a lot of sense.

Don't you ever get any sleep editor? You're often posting when i've had my breakfast. Amazing, take my hat off to you!
 
fela fan said:
But anyway, we could look at it another way: what a marvellous stroke of luck for blair (and bush) that kelly should decide to kill himself, just at the perfect time too!
You mean after he'd just conducted a private, lengthy, in-depth interview with a journalist and potentially spilled all the beans to an international broadcaster, yes?

Grrreat logic, fela!
 
editor said:
You mean after he'd just conducted a private, lengthy, in-depth interview with a journalist and potentially spilled all the beans to an international broadcaster, yes?

Grrreat logic, fela!

'Potentially' being the operative word there mate.

Seeing what damage he was 'potentially' about to create, they must have had to work fast to stop that damage.

But luckily for them, the man suddenly decided to kill himself. Such fortune eh!
 
editor said:
You mean after he'd just conducted a private, lengthy, in-depth interview with a journalist and potentially spilled all the beans to an international broadcaster, yes?

Grrreat logic, fela!

An off-record nod and wink interview.

Kelly clearly knew far morethan what he (calculatedly) put into the semi-public domain in his chats with gilligan et al.

Kelly was speaking on behalf of a lot of very very pissed off people in the intelligence community.

ITs quite plausible that he was about to stand up and go fully public and drop Blair and co right in the shit.

And another motive for killing him would be to send a little message to anyone else thinking about spilling the beans.

This isn't conspiraloon stuff - a death in any other workplace would have led the cops to have a very serious chat with Blair, Campbell and the senior spooks.
 
Kaka Tim said:
Silly me - what was I thinking?

I will go back to beliving the official version of everything without question otherwise I will be tarrred as conspiraloon - becasue believing that Kelly death seems pretty fucking dodgey clearly means I also believe that lizards flew hologramic planes into the World Trade Centre.
I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that there was *something* dodgy going on, but like the choice between 'official 911 version' vs 'holographic lizards' it isn't a binary choice between 'hutton was right' vs 'spooks killed Kelly'.

There is certainly a consistent pattern, especially during the WMD propaganda campaign leading up to war, of serious harassment, dirty tricks and intimidation against any credible sources willing to say the WMD stories were bullshit. The US vice president's chief of staff was indicted recently on perjury and obstruction of justice charges in just such a case and to pick another example, there is also an interesting list of uncooperative US generals who were sacked or forced to resign on trumped up sex charges.

It's perfectly possible that Kelly was subjected to intolerable pressure that we aren't aware of, in addition to the rather nasty, but not obviously end-it-all serious pressure that we are aware of.
 
Editor, I'd be grateful for an answer to the request I made you in post 22.

And I wonder if you could say a little more about your reasons for thinking that the family of a man who had presumably signed the official secrets acts would have been in possession of "the full facts of the case"?
 
Bernie Gunther said:
I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that there was *something* dodgy going on, but like the choice between 'official 911 version' vs 'holographic lizards' it isn't a binary choice between 'hutton was right' vs 'spooks killed Kelly'.

Agree - yet this seems to be whats on offer from posters on this thread - on both sides.

Same on the 9/11 threads - believing that elements in the US gov may have had a degree of prior knowledge and did not act on it for cynical, self-interested reasons is not an 'loonspud' position, yet the actions of the self appointed 'loonspud bashers' serve to cripple open debate as effectively as those who proclaim that its all a mossad/lizard/illuminati plot.
 
fela fan said:
You're deliberately being blind.

He had enough information to bring down blair.

And that would have brought down bush.

The man quite simply had to be killed.

What information do you believe he had, which would "bring down blair" etc? You are playing up both Kelly's role and his seniority in MoD somewhat.
 
Kaka Tim said:
An off-record nod and wink interview.

Kelly clearly knew far morethan what he (calculatedly) put into the semi-public domain in his chats with gilligan et al.

Kelly was speaking on behalf of a lot of very very pissed off people in the intelligence community.

ITs quite plausible that he was about to stand up and go fully public and drop Blair and co right in the shit.

And another motive for killing him would be to send a little message to anyone else thinking about spilling the beans.

This isn't conspiraloon stuff - a death in any other workplace would have led the cops to have a very serious chat with Blair, Campbell and the senior spooks.

Why did he clearly know more? What is the evidence of that?

He didn't work in the security or intelligence services, he worked for the MoD.

What makes you think he was speaking on behalf of what you call the "intelligence community"?

What do you think he was going to go "fully public" on?
 
Back
Top Bottom