Experts call for David Kelly 'suicide' inquiry

[JFKvsNixon]

Do you think dr Kelly was taking his heart condition into account when he made such a feeble but effective attempt to kill himself ?

If he really wanted to die surely he could've come up with a more effective method,Or maybe it was a cry for help.

 

You do know what undiagnosed means don't you?

[vResistance]

You do know what undiagnosed means don't you?

 

Yes of course.i have added an appropriate smillie to the comment.

 

Here's some info not talked about in the press

 

"* The paramedics at the scene insist to this day that Kelly could not possibly have bled to death, because there were only small traces of blood. The official inquiry ignored their evidence and concluded that he died from loss of blood!

 

* David Kelly was left-handed, but his left wrist was cut! This alone would prevent a verdict of suicide in a court of law or in a full inquest, on grounds of reasonable doubt. Furthermore, if he cut the arteries of his own left wrist, the initial large spurt of blood would have saturated his right hand, but that hand was clean! There was clearly another party involved.

 

* The evidence suggesting suicide, namely a knife and a bottle of water found at the scene, only appeared AFTER the body was found! Eye-witnesses from the search party insist that no knife or bottle was present when the body was found. These items only appeared after the untraceable "detectives" visited the scene.

 

* Leading experts insist that neither the injury or the pills would have been fatal.

 

* When the search party found Kelly's body he was lying in an awkward position with his left hand bent backward "awkwardly" which would be consistent with a man held in an arm lock until he died by a strong man trained in restraining techniques. When the real police arrived he was sitting upright! Who would interfere with a scene of crime?

 

* Cutting the wrists is only a common method of suicide in the minds of the public. In reality it is so rare that officially and statistically it never happens at all. It is a popular method of attempted suicide, but such attempts fail for well-known medical reasons. Nobody has ever attempted to use an old or blunt knife before, let alone with the wrong hand, as Dr Kelly is supposed to have done"

[donkey]

So the government arranged to kill him in a way that took into account an undiagnosed cardiac condition? Wouldn't it have been easier to just knock him down or put pictures of child porn on his computer?

 

So when an enemy of various powerful interests dies under suspicious circumstances and the subsequent inquiry is demonstrated to have been riven with irreghularities, unusually secretive and generally lacking in transparency, the onus is then on members of the public to put forward an exact scenario of how and why he might have been killed in order for there to be an open investigation? Is thems the rules? Aren't the aforementioned peculiarities and irregularities enough without having to come up with hypothetical scenarios of who may have killed him and why? I thought that was the job of the investigating authorities. After all, if there's really nothing to hide....

[JFKvsNixon]

So when an enemy of various powerful interests dies under suspicious circumstances and the subsequent inquiry is demonstrated to have been riven with irreghularities, unusually secretive and generally lacking in transparency, the onus is then on members of the public to put forward an exact scenario of how and why he might have been killed in order for there to be an open investigation? Is thems the rules? Aren't the aforementioned peculiarities and irregularities enough without having to come up with hypothetical scenarios of who may have killed him and why? I thought that was the job of the investigating authorities. After all, if there's really nothing to hide....

 

Has it been demonstrated that inquiry was riven with irregularities, or is that your subjective conclusion?

[donkey]

Has it been demonstrated that inquiry was riven with irregularities, or is that your subjective conclusion?

 

It was all in the link in th OP, which seems to have been taken down by yahoo, so here's some different ones.

 

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/67201,news-comment,news-politics,extremely-unlikely-dr-david-kelly-died-from-blood-loss-iraq-whistleblower-call-for-inquest

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311255/Dr-David-Kellys-body-obviously-moved-Paramedic-death-scene-reveals-concerns-Hutton-Inquiry.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245599/David-Kelly-post-mortem-kept-secret-70-years-doctors-accuse-Lord-Hutton-concealing-vital-information.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-489167/Travesty-truth-Was-Hutton-Inquiry-David-Kellys-death-just-cover-up.html

 

 

There is undisputed proof that Hutton completely ignored the testimony of the first two paramedics on the scene who said they were in no doubt Kelly's body had been moved and that there was not sufficient blood at the scene for him to have died from blood loss at that place. There is undisputed proof that Hutton made the unprecedented ruling that the Post Mortem results should be kept secret for 70 years. Given that Hutton knew there was widespread suspicion regarding kelly's death - and therefore should have been making an extra special effort to keep the proceedings transparent - these actions can be (and are) objectively described as irregularities.

 

There are a number of highly qualified medical experts who dispute the conclusions of the Post Mortem. The evidence of the paramedics which Hutton chose to ignore (how rude is that?) gives further weight to the claim that blood loss was not the cause of death.

 

The last link is to an article by Norman Baker MP. It is particularly intersting reading, although obviously open to the accusation that it is 'subjective.' However, given the very clear cut and concrete nature of some of his claims - in particular those regarding Blair announcing Hutton as head of the enquiry within minutes of hearing about kelly's death, and the claim that Hutton had sole control over who was called to testify and what evidence was admitted - it would be easy to simply dis-prove them if they were not true, and denounce Baker as a liar. That hasn't happened.

[vResistance]

This bit of video explains why enquirys are(as the law stands) pretty pointless as far as exposing the truth is concerned.

Explained here from another source(for those that don't accept youtube0

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiries_Act_2005

[Longcol]

Yes of course.i have added an appropriate smillie to the comment.

 

Here's some info not talked about in the press

 

"* The paramedics at the scene insist to this day that Kelly could not possibly have bled to death, because there were only small traces of blood. The official inquiry ignored their evidence and concluded that he died from loss of blood!

 

* David Kelly was left-handed, but his left wrist was cut! This alone would prevent a verdict of suicide in a court of law or in a full inquest, on grounds of reasonable doubt. Furthermore, if he cut the arteries of his own left wrist, the initial large spurt of blood would have saturated his right hand, but that hand was clean! There was clearly another party involved.

 

* The evidence suggesting suicide, namely a knife and a bottle of water found at the scene, only appeared AFTER the body was found! Eye-witnesses from the search party insist that no knife or bottle was present when the body was found. These items only appeared after the untraceable "detectives" visited the scene.

 

* Leading experts insist that neither the injury or the pills would have been fatal.

 

* When the search party found Kelly's body he was lying in an awkward position with his left hand bent backward "awkwardly" which would be consistent with a man held in an arm lock until he died by a strong man trained in restraining techniques. When the real police arrived he was sitting upright! Who would interfere with a scene of crime?

 

* Cutting the wrists is only a common method of suicide in the minds of the public. In reality it is so rare that officially and statistically it never happens at all. It is a popular method of attempted suicide, but such attempts fail for well-known medical reasons. Nobody has ever attempted to use an old or blunt knife before, let alone with the wrong hand, as Dr Kelly is supposed to have done"

 

When you cut and paste from another site (as this obviously is) then it is customary to acknowledge the source or provide a link to it.

[Longcol]

 

There is undisputed proof that Hutton completely ignored the testimony of the first two paramedics on the scene who said they were in no doubt Kelly's body had been moved and that there was not sufficient blood at the scene for him to have died from blood loss at that place. There is undisputed proof that Hutton made the unprecedented ruling that the Post Mortem results should be kept secret for 70 years. Given that Hutton knew there was widespread suspicion regarding kelly's death - and therefore should have been making an extra special effort to keep the proceedings transparent - these actions can be (and are) objectively described as irregularities.

 

There are a number of highly qualified medical experts who dispute the conclusions of the Post Mortem. The evidence of the paramedics which Hutton chose to ignore (how rude is that?) gives further weight to the claim that blood loss was not the cause of death.

 

The last link is to an article by Norman Baker MP. It is particularly intersting reading, although obviously open to the accusation that it is 'subjective.' However, given the very clear cut and concrete nature of some of his claims - in particular those regarding Blair announcing Hutton as head of the enquiry within minutes of hearing about kelly's death, and the claim that Hutton had sole control over who was called to testify and what evidence was admitted - it would be easy to simply dis-prove them if they were not true, and denounce Baker as a liar. That hasn't happened.

 

The pathologist found ample evidence of blood at the scene.

 

Hutton only made a recommendation about the post mortem being kept secret for 70 years.

 

All the other medical experts have gone quiet since the post mortem was published last week.

 

Baker has a book to sell. If he has real evidenced that Kelly was killed why hasn't he passed this to the police?

[Sean Hughes]

Smithster has got this one totally right

[donkey]

 

Baker has a book to sell. If he has real evidenced that Kelly was killed why hasn't he passed this to the police?

 

This is the whole point. Why should it be up to members of the public to find evidence. A lot of people think the inquiry was highly suspicious. This on it's own should be reasion enough for a more transparent enquiry in a case of this magnitude.

 

The pathologist found ample evidence of blood at the scene.

 

 

 

All the other medical experts have gone quiet since the post mortem was published last week.

 

Baker may have a book to sell, but I doubt he would lie about recorded evidence. Read the section in the link to his article regarding the choosing of the pathologist and comments the pathologist made himself during the enquiry indicating that he no longer stood by his original verdict. No matter what you think opf baker and his motives, many of the allegations he makes are on the basis of recorded testimony.