MP to investigate Dr Kelly's death

[Col_Buendia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schismogenesis

Word.

 

[editor]

Editor, I'd be grateful for an answer to the request I made you in post 22.

Your post suggested - to me - that the family would be so shocked that they somehow would accept a less than satisfactory/thorough verdict, and I thought that was a bit of an underhand comment - you've no idea how they felt at all.

I would have thought that the Kelly family would have been made privy to intimate details of the case not released to the public - and, of course, they knew the man far, far better than anyone here, so they would be in an infinitely better position to judge the likelihood of him taking his own life.

That's why I place their opinion on the matter above anyone here.


And yes, I have a fair bit "experience of grief" thanks very much; apart from family losses my best mate killed himself a few years ago.

 

[editor]

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 your proof for this is....? He had ample opportunities to talk to the press and I fail to see why he should keep on waiting.

I think he was put under intolerable pressure and treated disgracefully by both the government and the media - so much so that it led directly to his death.

Read the run up to his death here. The poor fucker.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/25/kelly.timeline/index.html

 

[Guineveretoo]

And your proof for this is....? He had ample opportunities to talk to the press and I fail to see why he should keep on waiting.

I think he was put under intolerable pressure and treated disgracefully by both the government and the media - so much so that it led directly to his death.

Read the run up to his death here. The poor fucker.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/25/kelly.timeline/index.html

He was, and the inquiry reached the same conclusion. There were quite a few repercussions amongst the senior staff at the MoD some of whom quite clearly bullied Kelly and didn't provide him with the support he should have received as an employee who was being hounded by the press. Of course, no-one at the MoD had any reason to think that he was suicidal, but that was no excuse for the lack of support provided to him. They hung him out to dry, in the hope that the pressure wouldn't turn on them, and doing so was outrageous. I know that his family were very upset about that, and have said so, but they don't think he was murdered.

 

[Col_Buendia]

Your post suggested - to me - that the family would be so shocked that they somehow would accept a less than satisfactory/thorough verdict, and I thought that was a bit of an underhand comment - you've no idea how they felt at all.

Thank you for your response. So that's you and me both who have had experiences of suicides (and I'm sorry to hear that), and we'd know that it is not pleasant for those left behind. I would suggest that this perhaps does give us an inkling of what they might have been going through, hence my suggestion that the family would have been "disturbed". I think it is fairly well documented that the mind doesn't function at its best during periods of grief, so I don't see why it should be so outrageous to imagine that the family were the ones perhaps least able to view the case clearly.

I would have thought that the Kelly family would have been made privy to intimate details of the case not released to the public - and, of course, they knew the man far, far better than anyone here, so they would be in an infinitely better position to judge the likelihood of him taking his own life.

That's why I place their opinion on the matter above anyone here.

Well, if you're talking about the details of what happened to him in his final hours, deatils of the injuries to the body etc etc, then perhaps yes. But as I said earlier, the man had presumably signed the official secrets act. Does that not oblige the signatories to maintain the confidentiality of the information covererd by it even with their closest family? If we accept that his work had some bearing on his death, then it seems entirely reasonable to me to assume that there is a world of detail connected to the case about which the family wouldn't have the first notion. That's why I personally don't think their word is final on this matter, however much my heart goes out to them for having lost a loved one to political intrigues.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Thank you for your response. So that's you and me both who have had experiences of suicides (and I'm sorry to hear that), and we'd know that it is not pleasant for those left behind. I would suggest that this perhaps does give us an inkling of what they might have been going through, hence my suggestion that the family would have been "disturbed". I think it is fairly well documented that the mind doesn't function at its best during periods of grief, so I don't see why it should be so outrageous to imagine that the family were the ones perhaps least able to view the case clearly.



Well, if you're talking about the details of what happened to him in his final hours, deatils of the injuries to the body etc etc, then perhaps yes. But as I said earlier, the man had presumably signed the official secrets act. Does that not oblige the signatories to maintain the confidentiality of the information covererd by it even with their closest family? If we accept that his work had some bearing on his death, then it seems entirely reasonable to me to assume that there is a world of detail connected to the case about which the family wouldn't have the first notion. That's why I personally don't think their word is final on this matter, however much my heart goes out to them for having lost a loved one to political intrigues.

He had already breached the Official Secrets Act by speaking to the press and would almost certainly have been sacked for this, which, of course, both he and his family knew.

On top of that, he was being hounded by the press and not given any protection, support or advice by his employers, the MoD.

All of this was, however, covered by the original inquiry.

 

[editor]

If we accept that his work had some bearing on his death, then it seems entirely reasonable to me to assume that there is a world of detail connected to the case about which the family wouldn't have the first notion. That's why I personally don't think their word is final on this matter, however much my heart goes out to them for having lost a loved one to political intrigues.

The point is that the family knew him better than anyone else so they were the people who could best judge whether he was likely to take his own life or not.

 

[TAE]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article571687.ece

The Prime Minister said the auction of a copy of the Hutton report, allegedly signed by Cherie Blair and Alastair Campbell, his former communications chief, was not intended to cause offence.

Alastair Campbell signed it? Now that really is sick.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article571687.ece

Alastair Campbell signed it? Now that really is sick.

Obscene even.

 

[Kaka Tim]

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?

Yes he would have been working alongside, or in close contact with the Intelligence community, he was the MOD's resident expert on WMD whilst they (MI5) were trying to find eveidence for it.

And his interview with Giligan was light on detail and OFF THE RECORD - if he had publicy and categorically repeated what he implied to Giligan it would have casued the Government a lot of shit.



As for what else he knew - well he was clearly connected with other people within the MOD and intelligence communty, many of whom were leaking dirt on Blair as they're was a lot of bad feeling about the whole WMD fiasco - now this was being widely reported at the time by reporters who work with spooks. Re-read what I put about John snows comments on channel 4 news.

And that in itself is another motive for murdering him - to get everyone else to shut the fuck up - certainly that was why he was put under pressure.

And I never claimed I knew he was going to go public - but its a plausible scenario (cos he was being shafted by his employers) and a plausible motive for killing him.

FFS - nobody have 'proof' of anyhting here - including that it was suicide, what we have is a scenario where both state execution and suicide are plausible explanations.

I dunno - maybe he commited suicide but made it look like murder in order to get back at the MOD? (not totally serious suggesiotn folks ...)

JUST BECASUE JAZZ AND CO QUESTIONS SOMETHING IT DOESN'T MAKE THAT WHICH IS QUESTIONED AUTOMATICALLY TRUE.

Jesus fucking christ ...

 

[Kid_Eternity]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article571687.ece

Alastair Campbell signed it? Now that really is sick.

Apparently he signed more than one copy. Funny his wife Fiona Miller is writing in places that Cherie should apologise for signing it when her husband arguebly had more to do with Kellys death (stop conspiraloons! I meant that the outing of him as a source -for Andrew Gilligans newspiece- contributed to him wanting to end things not that Ali Campbell secretly runs some covert government death sqaud)...

 

[brixtonvilla]

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

It is, y'know. Or at least, it is without any solid evidence. Don't suppose you've got any kicking about, by any chance?

 

[Jonti]

Obscene even.

Not a word I use lightly, but yes, obscene.

 

[Jo/Joe]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article571687.ece

Alastair Campbell signed it? Now that really is sick.

New Labour seems to have no boundaries whatsoever, unless there's a quick poll boost to be had.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article571687.ece

Alastair Campbell signed it? Now that really is sick.

Thing is, if, as a quick google strongly suggests, most sources agree that both Cherie and Campbell signed it, why on earth is the story 'Cherie signs hutton report' with Campbell in the small print?

Campbell certainly appears to have been the main driving force behind the intense campaign of intimidation against anyone questioning government WMD lies in which the unfortunate Dr Kelly's life was 'collateral damage'

 

[Badger Kitten]

I cannot fathom the reasoning behind either of them signing it. Why on earth would you sign a report into a man's death? Are they so obsessed with ''winning'' that they signed it as a sort of prize, crowing proof of one more that they ''won'', proof of their power? How they fucked over the BBC and caused a man's suicide?

That is abhorrent beyond words. That's psychopathic, prizing ''winning'' above human empathy.

Bloody hell, I am disgusted. And quite scared.

 

[Jazzz]

Just thought I'd remind people of the circumstances and some of the objections from conspiraloons in their letter to the Guardian

Medical evidence does not support suicide by Kelly

Thursday February 12, 2004
The Guardian

Since three of us wrote our letter to the Guardian on January 27, questioning whether Dr Kelly's death was suicide, we have received professional support for our view from vascular surgeon Martin Birnstingl, pathologist Dr Peter Fletcher, and consultant in public health Dr Andrew Rouse. We all agree that it is highly improbable that the primary cause of Dr Kelly's death was haemorrhage from transection of a single ulnar artery, as stated by Brian Hutton in his report.

On February 10, Dr Rouse wrote to the BMJ explaining that he and his colleague, Yaser Adi, had spent 100 hours preparing a report, Hutton, Kelly and the Missing Epidemiology. They concluded that "the identified evidence does not support the view that wrist-slash deaths are common (or indeed possible)". While Professor Chris Milroy, in a letter to the BMJ, responded, "unlikely does not make it impossible", Dr Rouse replied: "Before most of us will be prepared to accept wristslashing ... as a satisfactory and credible explanation for a death, we will also require evidence that such aetiologies are likely; not merely 'possible'. "

Our criticism of the Hutton report is that its verdict of "suicide" is an inappropriate finding. To bleed to death from a transected artery goes against classical medical teaching, which is that a transected artery retracts, narrows, clots and stops bleeding within minutes. Even if a person continues to bleed, the body compensates for the loss of blood through vasoconstriction (closing down of non-essential arteries). This allows a partially exsanguinated individual to live for many hours, even days.

Professor Milroy expands on the finding of Dr Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist at the Hutton inquiry - that haemorrhage was the main cause of death (possibly finding it inadequate) - and falls back on the toxicology: "The toxicology showed a significant overdose of co-proxamol. The standard text, Baselt, records deaths with concentrations at 1 mg/l, the concentration found in Kelly." But Dr Allan, the toxicogist in the case, considered this nowhere near toxic. Each of the two components was a third of what is normally considered a fatal level. Professor Milroy then talks of "ischaemic heart disease". But Dr Hunt is explicit that Dr Kelly did not suffer a heart attack. Thus, one must assume that no changes attributable to myocardial ischaemia were actually found at autopsy.

We believe the verdict given is in contradiction to medical teaching; is at variance with documented cases of wrist-slash suicides; and does not align itself with the evidence presented at the inquiry. We call for the reopening of the inquest by the coroner, where a jury may be called and evidence taken on oath.


Andrew Rouse
Public health consultant
Searle Sennett
Specialist in anaesthesiology
David Halpin
Specialist in trauma
Stephen Frost
Specialist in radiology
Dr Peter Fletcher
Specialist in pathology
Martin Birnstingl
Specialist in vascular surgery

Guardian

 

[Jazzz]

Hold on, I've no problem with the idea that there may have been shortcomings in the enquiry, but I have big problems with the loonspuddery claims that came out at the time.

MI5 Operative: "Right, this Kelly geezer looks likely to spill the beans, so we need to take him out before the story gets out to the media, right?"
Shady government official: "Damn right"
MI5 Operative: "So when shall we do the job"
Shady government official: "Straight after he's conducted a lengthy private interview with the media"

What are the signs exactly that someone 'looks likely' to spill the beans? Surely the first sign is that they start talking to the press. Or do you just murder everyone who knows something?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Just thought I'd remind people of the circumstances and some of the objections from conspiraloons in their letter to the Guardian



Guardian

Interesting that what appear to be qualified professionals are querying the suicide verdict. I'd been unaware of that.

 

[editor]

What are the signs exactly that someone 'looks likely' to spill the beans? Surely the first sign is that they start talking to the press. Or do you just murder everyone who knows something?

Here's a clue for you:

May 22, 2003: David Kelly meets BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan in central London's Charing Cross Hotel.

 

[Jazzz]

Thanks editor.

So, Kelly meets Gilligan, that makes the spooks think 'hmmm we should watch this Kelly chap' (assuming he was under observation), and then go back in their time machine to get rid of him before he met Gilligan?

 

[editor]

So, Kelly meets Gilligan, that makes the spooks think 'hmmm we should watch this Kelly chap' (assuming he was under observation), and then go back in their time machine to get rid of him before he met Gilligan?

No, of course not!

Instead 'they' waited until after he'd complained to the BBC and had attended two interviews at the MoD, leaving him free to do as he pleased for nearly two months after the Gilligan interview.

So how come he wasn't killed immediately after the BBC interview?

 

[Jazzz]

No, of course not!

Instead 'they' waited until after he'd complained to the BBC and had attended two interviews at the MoD, leaving him free to do as he pleased for nearly two months after the Gilligan interview.

So how come he wasn't killed immediately after the BBC interview?

I don't think it's for us to second guess at what point someone might have decided to murder Dr. Kelly.

 

[editor]

I don't think it's for us to second guess at what point someone might have decided to murder Dr. Kelly.

Priceless!

10/10.

 

[Lock&Light]

I don't think it's for us to second guess at what point someone might have decided to murder Dr. Kelly.

Coming from you, Jazzz, this really made me laugh out loud.

 

[Jazzz]

Coming from you, Jazzz, this really made me laugh out loud.

Why?

This is completely the wrong way around.

Defendant: "Your Honour, it couldn't have been me, I wouldn't have murdered him on the 12th because I would have been better off murdering him before he started shagging my wife"

Judge: "Case dismissed! And in fact not only that but it never was murder in the first place! It must have been suicide"

Prosecution: "Bu.."

Judge: "Stop wasting my time with this conspiraloonery"

 

[editor]

Why?

This is completely the wrong way around.

Bless.

You don't even get it, do you?

 

[El Jugador]

Assisted suicide perhaps?

So Kelly gave his personal guarantee to the Iraqis that the invasion would not happen if they let in the weapons inspectors, and then when the invasion happened anyway, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian deaths, and being a man of honour and knowing that he had been used like a right mug, he did the honourable thing before anyone else did it to/for him, maybe even with a little help from our side for the good of the country, protecting our protectors and all that - Much better than having bits of you cut off by an Iraqi hitman anyway.

Such a shame Blair isn't enough of a man to follow his example IMO.

 

[Guineveretoo]

So Kelly gave his personal guarantee to the Iraqis that the invasion would not happen if they let in the weapons inspectors, and then when the invasion happened anyway, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian deaths, and being a man of honour and knowing that he had been used like a right mug, he did the honourable thing before anyone else did it to/for him, maybe even with a little help from our side for the good of the country, protecting our protectors and all that - Much better than having bits of you cut off by an Iraqi hitman anyway.

Such a shame Blair isn't enough of a man to follow his example IMO.

What would give Kelly the authority to be able to give a "personal guarantee" to anyone? He was a Government scientist. Not a politician.

 

[El Jugador]

What would give Kelly the authority to be able to give a "personal guarantee" to anyone? He was a Government scientist. Not a politician.

No authority of his own, merely relaying the promises he had been made by those who did - He had been promised that the invasion would hinge on the success/failure of the weapons inspections and sadly he presumed he had grounds and authority to believe it. Incidentally he was not merely a 'government scientist' - he was the head of the United Nations weapons inspection team and had a vast experience in the subject and there was pretty much no-one more senior or better informed than he (who was dealing with the Iraqis, at least). So while Bush and his pals were haranging for war it was down to Kelly and his team as the only people who could resolve the matter peacefully - but of course that was never the plan and when he realised it he tried to blow the whistle through Gilligan.