Dr David Kelly - Britsh Cover-up or not? Your verdict!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 25-01-2010 03:04AM

Terry wrote: »

I drink and smoke heavily, buy I'm going to be one of the people you always hear about living to be 200.

I'll drink to that

In the shoes of David Kelly, I'd probably kill myself if I had played a large part in the innocent deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Can't be an easy thing to live with if you have a conscience.

This is quite true. It's very possible that he just killed himself, but... why hide his files from public view? I don't think this should be allowed at all. It's so very very wrong.

MaybeLogic wrote: »

He played a minor role and was a dissenting voice in the compiling of the Iraq Dossier..

Minor or major role, he still played a role. That may have played on his mind, tipping him over the edge.

ascanbe · 25-01-2010 03:20AM

This song was written about the Dr.Kelly situation.
Don't know if it really throws any light upon it; it's a damn good song, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AS37ZSYOwTA

nacho libre · 29-01-2010 03:00PM

i'd like the those who believe that it's just another wacky conspiracies theory to explain, why the records need to be sealed for 70 years?

let me guess national security;)

this just further demonstrates that while certain people may have a need to believe in conspiracy theories in the absence of credible evidence, there are also people who have a need to believe the offical narrative of events regardless of weighty evidence to the contrary.

hooradiation · 29-01-2010 03:10PM

nacho libre wrote: »

i'd like the those who believe that it's just another wacky conspiracies theory to explain, why the records need to be sealed for 70 years?

let me guess national security;)

this just further demonstrates that while certain people may have a need to believe in conspiracy theories in the absence of credible evidence, there are also people who have a need to believe the offical narrative of events regardless of weighty evidence to the contrary.

Except there is none.

All we actually know for certain is that the records have been sealed for 70 years. Everything beyond that is nothing but speculation.

humanji · 29-01-2010 03:19PM

Biggins wrote: »

Seriously though, the hushing up of Kelly's results DOES tell us something - the British government does NOT want the public to know something that might lead to someone being held responsible and wants to stop further questions being asked to a certain direction, state organisation (official/unofficial) or people.

At least that much is obvious I think.

No, it tells us that there's something related to the case that is of apparent national importance and not for the publics eyes. That's the only thing it tells you. Everything else is just a guess.

Personally, I see Kelly's death as suspicious, but as pointed out above, it doesn't seem likely that he'd have any information that would of been of any importance. Maybe he was killed by a gay lover? Who knows?

Dravokivich · 29-01-2010 03:21PM

TheZohan wrote: »

70 years....they're hiding something...but we'll all be dead before it comes out.

Don't worry man, when we discover time travel we'll have it back no in a matter of moments from someone in the future.

- Drav!

Biggins · 29-01-2010 03:27PM

humanji wrote: »

No, it tells us that there's something related to the case that is of apparent national importance and not for the publics eyes. That's the only thing it tells you. Everything else is just a guess.

Either it WAS suicide or it wasn't.
Its a "yes" or "no" answer.

If he killed himself, let the public corner have the details and medical records.
If he didn't, why the secrecy about how he died?

humanji wrote: »

Personally, I see Kelly's death as suspicious, but as pointed out above, it doesn't seem likely that he'd have any information that would of been of any importance.

Other than he was going to state clearer for the record who put pressure on him to falsify a report, name names and give further direction to an inquiry that might head in a direction, those guilty or partly responsible don't want them to look at!

humanji wrote: »

Maybe he was killed by a gay lover? Who knows?

That would be a matter for a high court judge and for a LIVING individual to impose the media to a blackout under the Human Rights Act and the right to privacy.
See todays news for an example of this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246925/Court-gagging-order-soccer-stars-secret-affair.html

General Zod · 29-01-2010 03:32PM

I think it was about something else, not just the WMD.

I don't know what that something else is.

humanji · 29-01-2010 03:33PM

Biggins wrote: »

Either it WAS suicide or it wasn't.
Its a "yes" or "no" answer.

If he killed himself, let the public corner have the details and medical records.
If he didn't, why the secrecy about how he died?

Who knows? We'd be guessing, since we don't hav the facts.

Biggins wrote: »

Other than he was going to state clearer for the record who put pressure on him to falsify a report, name names and give further direction to an inquiry that might head in a direction, those guilty or partly responsible don't want them to look at!

But it was all unsubstantiated. That's the problem. And who knows, maybe he lied about all that because someone else put pressure on him to say that he falsified the reports? Again, non of us know.

hooradiation · 29-01-2010 03:34PM

Biggins wrote: »

Either is WAS suicude or it wasn't.
Its a "yes" or "no" answer.

If he killed himself, let the public corner have the details and medical records.
If he didn't, why the secrecy about how he died?

Look, we don't know. That's because the records are sealed. Nobody is disputing this.

What people are saying is that when you go

"They are sealed THEREFORE it's to stop <insert X, Y Z here>" that you are talking out of your arse, because there is no way on earth for you to be certain of that.
None.

You can speculate wildly, nobody can stop you, but if you try and pass off your fevered imaginings as objective fact....well they're not and please stop, theres an entire CT forum for that nonsense.

And the Daily Mail? Try linking to something that isn't that horrible shitrag.

Biggins · 29-01-2010 03:41PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Look, we don't know. That's because the records are sealed. Nobody is disputing this.

What people are saying is that when you go (???)

"They are sealed THEREFORE it's to stop <insert X, Y Z here>" that you are talking out of your arse, because there is no way on earth for you to be certain of that.
None.

You can speculate wildly, nobody can stop you, but if you try and pass off your fevered imaginings as objective fact....well they're not and please stop, theres an entire CT forum for that nonsense.

And the Daily Mail? Try linking to something that isn't that horrible shitrag.

Pardon me!

I reported on the 90 year closure, asked a question and posted a poll.
People are still free to give opinions as far as I know.

And as for the Mail - the same "news Blackout " and those entitled to do it as regards privacy, has been reported today and yesterday in a number of papers. I just used the Mail as a quick reference. The basic underlying facts are still the same: "That would be a matter for a high court judge and for a LIVING individual to impose the media to a blackout under the Human Rights Act and the right to privacy."

hooradiation · 29-01-2010 03:50PM

Biggins wrote: »

Pardon me!

I reported on the 90 year closure, asked a question and posted a poll.
People are still free to give opinions as far as I know.

And as for the Mail - the same "news Blackout " and those entitled to do it as regards privacy, has been reported today and yesterday in a number of papers. I just used the Mail as a quick reference. The basic underlying facts are still the same: "That would be a matter for a high court judge and for a LIVING individual to impose the media to a blackout under the Human Rights Act and the right to privacy."

Oh for fucks sake.

Look, you stated this:

Seriously though, the hushing up of Kelly's results DOES tell us something - the British government does NOT want the public to know something that might lead to someone being held responsible and wants to stop further questions being asked to a certain direction, state organisation (official/unofficial) or people.

I'm calling you on everything after the bit I've bolded being total speculation and nothing more.
If you want to move the goalposts and play at being shocked, fine, if you want to argue that it's more than speculation then your more than welcome to try.

And i don't buy the whole "ohh the mail was the quickest one", nearly every thread i've seen you start of late contains a link to that odious fucking rag.

Nick_oliveri · 29-01-2010 03:58PM

Well then, why do YOU think the records were sealed? Just for the lulz?

Biggins · 29-01-2010 04:00PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Oh for fucks sake.

Look, you stated this:

Seriously though, the hushing up of Kelly's results DOES tell us something - the British government does NOT want the public to know something that might lead to someone being held responsible and wants to stop further questions being asked to a certain direction, state organisation (official/unofficial) or people.

I think you might have over looked the "MIGHT" wording in the sentence - it was an open question to the forum, not a statement of fact other than "the British government does NOT want the public to know something" and thats obvious - but hell we can over look "might" for convenience too...

...and you still haven't explained why Lord Hutton's decision to classify documents about the death of Dr David Kelly applies when the right to privacy and non-disclosure applies and is used under the human right act.

Its an easy kop-out to just say "state secret" but what the hell is so secret about telling a family if their husband/father killed himself or not?
(its a black or white question for them)
The cornier don't have to go into details about the death. He can be allowed to state if he was murdered or not.
They won't even allow him or the family that - why???

If he killed himself, right, fair enough. Let the family know for gods sake.
If he didn't say otherwise. Its not that hard to do.

Just as an additional follow up of thoughts:

Clearly there is more to this case than is known.
The only reasons I can personally think of that might force a blackout, is that there is more to this case than meets the eye as regards the time-line surrounding the afternoon of his death. This raises may questions. Some being: was he under observation at the time? By who (if so)? Was any possible killers seen? Why weren't they stopped if it was murder? ...and so on to an endless amount of questions that would drive conspiracy's crazy.

If it was a straight forwards suicide, why not just say so now and move on?
I'm probably stupid but I can't see why they don't say "Yes, he killed himself" or "No, he was unlawfully killed but details of his death we cannot release due to further inquiries or state secrecy"

Thats all the family is asking for. Peace of mind.

humanji · 29-01-2010 04:14PM

Biggins wrote: »

I think you might have over looked the "MIGHT" wording in the sentence - it was an open question to the forum, not a statement of fact other than "the British government does NOT want the public to know something" and thats obvious - but hell we can over look "might" for convenience too...

In fairness, the way you phrased the statement makes it look like you are declaring it as a fact:

Biggins wrote:

the British government does NOT want the public to know something that might lead to someone being held responsible

This looks like you are saying that someone is responsible and the British government are trying to hide information that will lead to the culprit being uncovered. Having "might" in there doesn't change the meaning in the way you think it does.

Biggins · 29-01-2010 04:24PM

humanji wrote: »

In fairness, the way you phrased the statement makes it look like you are declaring it as a fact:

This looks like you are saying that someone is responsible and the British government are trying to hide information that will lead to the culprit being uncovered. Having "might" in there doesn't change the meaning in the way you think it does.

I don't want the thread to get tied down over possible misreading that might have been brought about on my wrong phrasing or clearer choice of words which I admit might have been phrased clearer - I guess I will have to have some of my posts reviewed by someone from now on.

In respect of that, I know we all have our own thoughts and sticking with the main topic, as a parent and father I know I would just like to know if my dad had killed himself or if he was killed.
I might not like the answer either way but at least i would have gotten one and released any possible sense of shame that might exist about the actions one's dad is accused (and stated to have done in the media) of doing to himself.

I don't think its fair that his wife and children will never, ever know a basic answer to a medical evidence question.

humanji · 29-01-2010 04:46PM

Biggins wrote: »

I don't want the thread to get tied down over possible misreading that might have been brought about on my wrong phrasing or clearer choice of words which I admit might have been phrased clearer - I guess I will have to have some of my posts reviewed by someone from now on.

You're right, it's just getting pedantic now. Sorry.

The thing about the case is that a lot of people are just taking a few things they heard about it and assuming that Kelly had all this secret information that was going to send hundreds of high up people to prison.

The guy thought there were WMD's in Iraq. His main problem was with a claim that Iraq could launch them in something like half an hour. He, and a few others said this was nonsense, but it was published in the infamous "Dossier". I think he was also involved in investigating some of the sites in the aftermath, looking for evidence of WMD's and of the site he visited, he said it couldn't of been used for biological weapons making. But many people assume he said that there had never been any WMD's.

The problems arose when he did an interview on the BBC and it got found out that it was him. He denied it, but there was a lot of evidence to suggest he was just backtracking to cover himself. He seemed to keep digging himself into a hole, and if he felt trapped enough, it seems fairly plausible that he killed himself.

If he did indeed kill himself, then it's also quite plausible that things are being sealed to protect anyone who acted inappropriately with regards teh WMD's in Iraq, and it may have nothing to do with his death at all. It's just the fact that they may feel it has to be an all or nothing deal.

edit: I was talking with a guy in my office who pointed out that Kelly had assured several contacts he had in Iraq that there wouldn't be a war and when asked by a friend what would happen if there was one he said something alone the lines of "They'll probably find me dead in the woods", which is ominous to say the least.

So that's another possible theory, that Iraqi elements killed him in revenge for lying to them. Might seem extreme, but everything's a possibility at the moment.

humanji · 29-01-2010 04:47PM

Biggins wrote: »

I don't think its fair that his wife and children will never, ever know a basic answer to a medical evidence question.

Actually, there's a question. Does anyone know what the family want? Most articles seem to gloss over them.

Elliemental · 29-01-2010 04:53PM

Like many on here have already said, we'll probably never get to the truth of this matter, but I have a very strong feeling, going on what I have read about the case, that it is a cover-up. But, it is just feeling. There is something deeply fishy about the whole sorry episode.

Biggins · 29-01-2010 04:54PM

Humanji - All possibly true and lord knows - we will probably never know, nor will our great grandchildren...

I've no doubt that he did know "something". Again "what" is an open question.

The veins on his arteries were re-examined again and as some later said, the way the were cut (I'm paraphrasing) was highly unlikely to be possible in a suicidal way by ones self.
Despite all the other additional mysteries, the main one will go unanswered if Hutton gets his way, is the simple question "was it indeed suicide or not?"

Even if the public never gets to know, the British government could get the family to sign state non-disclosure agreements and tell them one way or another.
At least a terrible question will not be forever hanging over their heads till their own passing.

humanji · 29-01-2010 05:09PM

Biggins wrote: »

The veins on his arteries were re-examined again and as some later said, the way the were cut (I'm paraphrasing) was highly unlikely to be possible in a suicidal way by ones self.

Well the thing about that is that he also took a load of painkillers which, while being reportedly not enough to kill, could also have made a difference. As would the heart condition he suffered from.

Biggins wrote: »

Even if the public never gets to know, the British government could get the family to sign state non-disclosure agreements and tell them one way or another.
At least a terrible question will not be forever hanging over their heads till their own passing.

You're making the mistake of thinking a government would care about the welfare of it's people.

Biggins · 29-01-2010 05:19PM

humanji wrote: »

Well the thing about that is that he also took a load of painkillers which, while being reportedly not enough to kill, could also have made a difference. As would the heart condition he suffered from.

Some heavy conspiracy advocates could claim "if he took them or was he was forced bla, bla...?"
I'll leave that to them... long story short, we will never know and probably useless to dwell on.

humanji wrote: »

You're making the mistake of thinking a government would care about the welfare of it's people.

Aye, no argument there either.

Son Of A Vidic · 29-01-2010 06:06PM

This case seemed odd the start and it has proved quite intriguing. My suspicion is that Dr. David Kelly was murdered, I base my own conclusion on some odd facts which the authorities have not even attempted to discount.
The official line is Dr. Kelly took an overdose and slashed his wrist, this overdose allegedly consisted of 29 Co-Proxamol tablets. In my medical opinion, this is not a sufficient dosage to lead to death. Elevated and deranged Liver function yes, but not death.
The levels of Co-Proxamol found in his blood during autopsy, was only one-third of a fatal dose.
Only a partial fragment of one Co-Proxamol tablet was found in his stomach during autopsy.
The next odd aspect of his death are the wrist cuts, Dr. Kelly was right handed but the slash wounds to his wrist could not have been performed by a right handed individual.
The Gardening knife which the authorities claimed delivered the injuries, was in fact blunt.
Dr. Kelly was wearing no gloves when his body was found, yet his fingerprints were not found on the gardening knife which he supposedly used.
Finally in order for someone to die by haemorrhage or bleed to death, you would need to lose between 4-5 pints of blood. Paramedics who arrived the scene recorded minimal blood loss, this ironically was also documented by scene of crime experts.
The Police file concerning this case is secret and will never be made public, the file was codenamed operation 'Mason'. This file was logged as been created on the day Dr. Kelly died, this was 1 hour before Dr. Kelly even left his house to go on that ill-fated walk. Draw your own conclusions here, but these points I've mentioned are not in dispute. Throw in a 70 year exclusion order and hey, if it walks like a Duck and talks like a Duck, well it must be a Duck.

Biggins · 29-01-2010 06:10PM

medicman2009 wrote: »

This case seemed odd the start and it has proved quite intriguing. My suspicion is that Dr. David Kelly was murdered, I base my own conclusion on some odd facts which the authorities have not even attempted to discount.
The official line is Dr. Kelly took an overdose and slashed his wrist, this overdose allegedly consisted of 29 Co-Proxamol tablets. In my medical opinion, this is not a sufficient dosage to lead to death. Elevated and deranged Liver function yes, but not death.
The levels of Co-Proxamol found in his blood during autopsy, was only one-third of a fatal dose.
Only a partial fragment of one Co-Proxamol tablet was found in his stomach during autopsy.
The next odd aspect of his death are the wrist cuts, Dr. Kelly was right handed but the slash wounds to his wrist could not have been performed by a right handed individual.
The Gardening knife which the authorities claimed delivered the injuries, was in fact blunt.
Dr. Kelly was wearing no gloves when his body was found, yet his fingerprints were not found on the gardening knife which he supposedly used.
Finally in order for someone to die by haemorrhage or bleed to death, you would need to lose between 4-5 pints of blood. Paramedics who arrived the scene recorded minimal blood loss, this ironically was also documented by scene of crime experts.
The Police file concerning this case is secret and will never be made public, the file was codenamed operation 'Mason'. This file was logged as been created on the day Dr. Kelly died, this was 1 hour before Dr. Kelly even left his house to go on that ill-fated walk. Draw your own conclusions here, but these points I've mentioned are not in dispute. Throw in a 70 year exclusion order and hey, if it walks like a Duck and talks like a Duck, well it must be a Duck.

Good summary.
Its one very strange case indeed is all I can say.

nacho libre · 29-01-2010 08:44PM

hooradiation wrote: »

Except there is none.

All we actually know for certain is that the records have been sealed for 70 years. Everything beyond that is nothing but speculation.

Except there is plenty of evidence to indicate the official story of events is not what happened. If you don't like to accept that apparatuses of a civilised European state could engage in such immoral practices it's understandable why such inconsistencies in the offical narrative will be overlooked.
Fair enough in some cases some people will believe in conspiracies regardless of the evidence produced to debunk them, but this man's death is not one of those cases.

If there is nothing amiss in this case why seal the records for 70 years?

Dr David Kelly - Britsh Cover-up or not? Your verdict!

Comments