10 years since the death of David Kelly.

[Longcol]

And yet that version of the page still doesn't come with sources for it's claims

 

Investigative Journalist James Corbett speaking to Dr David Halpin?

 

''Dr. Halpin is involved in an attempt to open a judicial review into the decision not to convene an inquest on the death. Paying for the proceedings out of his own pocket, this retired orthopedic surgeon is now shouldering the brunt of the responsibility for attempting to see a proper investigation into the many discrepancies in the Dr. Kelly case.

 

In recent months an independent grassroots campaign to raise funds for the legal battle for an inquest has sprung up, and the public continues to show great concern over this case.

 

In my conversation, I had the chance to ask Dr. Halpin about the public’s support, and why convening an inquest into Dr. Kelly’s death is a matter of such importance.''

 

I have no objection to doing all the research for you, but could you please take the time to read what I post, instead of cherry picking?

Thanks...

 

Is Mr Halpin an expert in Forensic Pathology? Absolutley zero Forensic Pathologists, home or abroad, working or retired, have queried the post mortem and it's findings AFAIK.

Edited July 31, 2013 by esme
quote tags

[dosxuk]

I have no objection to doing all the research for you, but could you please take the time to read what I post, instead of cherry picking?

Thanks...

 

Then why don't you post a link to the version of your source which still contains all the source links to the claims in the article? It exists, I've seen it and read it today. If you're not aware of it, how do you know what it written in the version you quoted verbatim has not been altered to suit another's view?

 

A claim with no source or corroborable evidence has no point or value.

 

Besides, it's one of the rules for posting on this site that if you copy and paste from somewhere you provide a link to the source.

 

 

And yet that version of the page still doesn't come with sources for it's claims

 

Did you not read the mod note on the previous page? Maybe you should take the time to read what the mods post instead of cherry picking?

Edited July 31, 2013 by esme
Quote tags

[catpus]

Then why don't you post a link to the version of your

Besides, it's one of the rules for posting on this site that if you copy and paste from somewhere you provide a link to the source.

 

As far as I am aware I provide links at the end of everything I post?

 

***A forensic scientist who investigated the death of Iraq war whistle-blower Dr David Kelly was a rookie on her first big case.

The inexperienced assistant had never previously attended the scene of a suspicious death or unexplained killing, the Mirror can reveal.

And in a separate development yesterday it was confirmed the pathologist who examined Dr Kelly is being investigated over a series of astonishing blunders in another case.

The news led for renewed calls for a fresh inquiry into the death of the weapons inspector, who was exposed as the source of a BBC report saying the Government had “sexed-up” a dossier that helped take Britain into the Iraq war.

Senior detectives last night expressed surprise that a junior scientist had been sent to the scene when Dr Kelly’s body was found in woods on July 18, 2003.

Until two months earlier she had spent almost all her time in laboratories, testing clothes for body fluids and had rarely worked in the field.

Her role at Harrowdown Hill near Dr Kelly’s Oxfordshire home, was to help advise police on what to look for and how to gather evidence. In doing so, she played a crucial part in the Hutton Inquiry which concluded Dr Kelly, 59, killed himself by slashing his left wrist after taking

29 painkillers.

That verdict has now been questioned by leading doctors, lawyers and politicians who are backing growing demands for a full inquest.

The rookie scientist was not called to give evidence at the inquiry. But her presence in the crucial early hours of the probe “raised eyebrows” at the time, sources reveal.

In a statement, LGC Forensics, which now owns her employer Forensic Alliance, said two of its most experienced experts also went to the scene.

A spokeswoman said: “The assistant was a trained forensic scientist and was acting under the instruction of the senior scientist at all times.

“It is common practice for a senior forensic scientist to take an assistant to the scene for them to get the appropriate experience.”

But former murder squad cop Det Chief Insp Peter Kirkham said taking her along had been unwise. Mr Kirkham, who has investigated more than 20 murders, said: “Given the sensitivities of the case I would have expected only the most experienced scientists to be involved.

“You have to question if it was sensible to have people along for the ride or getting some kind of work experience on a case of this magnitude.

“Incidents like these inevitably throw up dozens of conspiracy theories and that’s why need to be able to say, ‘We had the A-team on this one’.”

Other concerns have been raised about the Hutton Inquiry set up by Tony Blair at the height of the political storm over the Iraq war.

And yesterday it was revealed the pathologist who told the inquiry that Dr Kelly had died from loss of blood is being probed after allegedly bungling the Sheffield inquest of an RAF crew member who died in Afghanistan.

Dr Nicholas Hunt is said to have made 14 mistakes – including wrongly recording the serviceman’s height, weight, hair and eye colour.

He also noted that the body had three tattoos when there were none – and dated the postmortem two weeks BEFORE the death.

In all, he had to issue three reports before all the information was correct.

A spokesman for the National Policing Improvement Agency, which regulates Home Office pathologists, said: “An experienced forensic pathologist will look into the complaint and see if there is a case to answer.”

Senior Aircraftman Christopher Bridge’s family were distraught. His mother Nicolette Williams called for Dr Hunt to be struck off. She said: “I

was absolutely disgusted.”

Supporting calls for a new inquest on Dr Kelly, former Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard said yesterday: “There are a growing number of

relevant questions that have arisen and cast doubt on the conclusions reached by Lord Hutton.”

Leading doctors claim Dr Kelly could not have bled to death. They say he would have needed to lose up to five pints of blood. But no measurement was taken of how much was left in his body.***

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/forensic-scientist-who-investigated-death-241932#ixzz2aYw208Ze

 

I found this article very interesting:

The Political Assassination of Dr. David Kelly: The Post Mortem Reports

https://misebogland.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/the-political-assassination-of-dr-david-kelly-the-post-mortem-reports-global-research/

 

And this...

 

***The post mortem was led by Home Office Pathologist Dr Nicholas Hunt. The combined report, which involved two other pathologists and their co-workers, as well as Hunt, appears to have been conducted along certain guidelines suggested by Hunt.

An indication of this comes from the toxicology report of forensic pathologist Dr Alexander Richard Allen, who was informed by Hunt before conducting his experiments that three blister packs of co-proxamol were found in Dr Kelly’s pocket.

When paracetamol and dextropoxyphene (the ingredients of co-proxamol) were found in the blood and stomach (albeit in very small quantities) all tests ceased and Allen wrote “no further analyses were carried out on the stomach’s contents.”

Dr Allen also reports he was informed that vomit was found around Dr Kelly’s mouth and beside his head. Alarmingly, no sample of this appears to have been analyzed.

Dr Allen concludes that there was not enough co-proxamol to kill Dr Kelly: not by a long way. So many questions arise here, it is difficult to know where to start. Why, in such a high-profile case, were forensic tests not conducted to determine whether foul play was involved?

To abandon analysis once certain substances are found is at best negligent, at worst criminal. Not to have taken a sample of vomit for analysis is similarly at best negligent, at worst criminal.

Certain toxins and venoms can cause vomiting, but there appears to have been no search for any alternative cause of death to co-proxamol ingestion coupled with wounds to Dr Kelly’s wrist. Dr Kelly is assumed to have slit his wrist. Yet even this raises questions. He was a highly intelligent and well-respected professional. It seems hardly believable that he would choose the smaller of two arteries if there was any serious intent from him to take his own life. Severance of the ulnar artery hardly ever brings about death as reported by a number of senior medical experts as early as February 2004.

Instead the artery clots and the body has its own mechanism for quickly closing it down to prevent blood loss. There is little likelihood of excessive bleeding from the ulnar artery and almost no possibility of this causing death.

Medics who attended the body saw so little blood they went public after Hutton had proclaimed blood loss was the reason for Dr Kelly’s death.

Why was an inquest not called for after the senior medical experts and paramedics had presented their arguments? ***

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2013/07/17/iraq-war-lies-and-dr-david-kellys-mysterious-death/#sthash.BfpxhLXG.dpuf

 

Finally: Take a peek at the last link.

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=452

 

I will not be continuing with this subject... I do not need to prove anything.... all the information anyone could ever want is on the net.

I am quite convinced that David Kelly was murdered. Full stop.

Edited July 31, 2013 by esme
Quote tags

[Longcol]

 

Finally: Take a peek at the last link.

http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=452

 

I will not be continuing with this subject... I do not need to prove anything.... all the information anyone could ever want is on the net.

I am quite convinced that David Kelly was murdered. Full stop.

 

Nothing from Forensic Pathologists to cast doubt on the post mortem then?

 

A lot of strawmen though - they harp on about him not taking enough tablets to kill himself - no one ever suggested he did die of an O/D. And CT's love to go on about lack of blood at the scene - as if blood would still form a large pool on grass / soil hours after death instead of soaking away.

 

You're easily convinced by "gishgallops".

Edited July 30, 2013 by Longcol

[Anna B]

If there was an inquest, or an inquiry into the inquiry, and it found the same as the original inquiry, would you be happy with that and let the matter drop?

 

The reason I ask is because there is a number of conspiracy theorists who like to go on and on about reinvestigating things until something comes up with an answer they like. Any other response, regardless of how detailed is apparently just evidence that there's a cover up going on.

 

While I would welcome a more detailed look into the circumstances of David Kelly's death, I don't think it's a valuable use of public funds, especially if the result of such an inquiry could just result in the same people going on about corruption and lies and demanding a third inquiry.

 

Maybe someone should create a kickstarter type website for publicly funding inquiries?

 

---------- Post added 30-07-2013 at 13:57 ----------

 

 

The only thing to be gained from reading that last link is the knowledge that there's quite a few bitter Christian's around.

 

The trouble is we have enquiries which are as corrupt as the original goings on. Take the Hillsborough enquiries for example. It took years of digging by ordinary people to get at the truth in spite of the enquiries. This makes the enquiries themselves part of the corruption.

 

When you can't trust the validity of a government enquiry and the participants who set themselves up as the highest in the land, who can you trust?

 

Or should we just let the rich and powerful get away with anything, including murder?

 

(And, as a side issue, the actual cost of these enquiries are ridiculous, but no one ever seems to question the cost, it's just more work for the boys...)

[tinfoilhat]

The trouble is we have enquiries which are as corrupt as the original goings on. Take the Hillsborough enquiries for example. It took years of digging by ordinary people to get at the truth in spite of the enquiries. This makes the enquiries themselves part of the corruption.

 

When you can't trust the validity of a government enquiry and the participants who set themselves up as the highest in the land, who can you trust?

 

Or should we just let the rich and powerful get away with anything, including murder?

 

(And, as a side issue, the actual cost of these enquiries are ridiculous, but no one ever seems to question the cost, it's just more work for the boys...)

 

Who do you want to do the enquiries? 20 random people with time on their hands or experts? The latter don't come cheap.

[Longcol]

The trouble is we have enquiries which are as corrupt as the original goings on. Take the Hillsborough enquiries for example. It took years of digging by ordinary people to get at the truth in spite of the enquiries. This makes the enquiries themselves part of the corruption.

 

The bulk of the facts about Hillsborough - ie that the deaths were caused by mistakes by the police - were established by the Taylor Interim Inquiry back in 1989.

 

Anyway - back to Kelly - any hard evidence or just more of your usual waffle.

[taxman]

Wouldn't be odd if the same person who murdered Kelly also shot all those soldiers at Deepcut Barracks.......I am Dan Brown, and I will make a book out of this!!!

[Obelix]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ten-yea...rnment/5343229

 

This would be the same website that cannot figure out what the HAARP transmitter is used for, and which you went very quiet about when you got roundly debunked over?

[Anna B]

The bulk of the facts about Hillsborough - ie that the deaths were caused by mistakes by the police - were established by the Taylor Interim Inquiry back in 1989.

 

Anyway - back to Kelly - any hard evidence or just more of your usual waffle.

 

I take it you haven't bothered to read many of the posts on here then.

I suggest you start with catpus above, then do a little investigating of your own.

 

Re: Hillsborough - Mistakes happen, everyone can accept that.

What is not acceptable is trying to cover it up by lying, altering statements and besmirching the reputations of the victims, whilst relying on your own reputation as the unasailable upholders of the law. That's corruption.