Dr David Kelly's body 'had obviously been moved'

Belgian thought said:
Not tablets, but capsules. A minor point, but perhaps an important one.
Click to expand...


Are you sure? I've never seen Distalgesic in any other formulation than what they call "caplets" - basically tablets, but not the usual round shape, elongated for easier swallowing.

I have always assumed it was the bog-standard Distalgesic/coproxamol caplets everyone was talking about. Are you sure the reference was really to actual capsules? Or was the word being used carelessly?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Are you sure? I've never seen Distalgesic in any other formulation than what they call "caplets" - basically tablets, but not the usual round shape, elongated for easier swallowing.

I have always assumed it was the bog-standard Distalgesic/coproxamol caplets everyone was talking about. Are you sure the reference was really to actual capsules? Or was the word being used carelessly?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I am merely referring to the cited letter and the use of the word "capsule". If the writer of letter is using it as his argument, and being careless, then so be it. I cannot know.

Footnote. Here in the UK, at least from my understanding, a tablet need not be round and is not deemed to be so, and a capsule is understood to be medication surrounded by a membrane of sort.
 
dudalb said:
Everybody want to play CSI Investigator nowdays.....
Click to expand...

It'll be a real hoot when all the autopsy photos are splashed across the web:

"Does that look like a lateral transected ulnar artery laceration to you?"

"Yes, and if I am not mistaken, it bears all the hallmarks of Mossad!"

"I concur and will further suggest the lacerations are there to conceal a deadly injection of dextropropoxyphene which was discovered in the toxicology report!"

"Aha! Brilliant Holmes, and because dextropropoxyphene is also found in coproxamol tablets people will assume he swallowed an overdose of them and that is why it appeared on the toxicology report!"

"That's right! And in order to do that they would also have had to put paracetamol in his bloodstream by force-feeding him coproxamol!"

"Errr...yes, unless he took them himself I suppose which would then explain the presence of dextropropoxyphene and the paracetamol..."

"Are you mad? The body's been moved. How did he manage to do that post-mortem?"
 
sleepy_lioness said:
The BBC Conspiracy Files documentary about David Kelly is excellent. From memory, it covers several of the points raised (could cutting his wrist have killed him? how much coproxamol did he take?).

Video available (legally) here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6456960202091085254#

Transcript:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/programmes/if/transcripts/david_kelly.txt
Click to expand...

It's been a while since I saw it, but I thought it was pretty typical of that programme. Devious and agenda driven, it follows the same template every time. Concentrate on the more far fetched claims, wave away the most sensible ones with a sentence, constant appeals to reason, portray the skeptics as borderline kooks, sad cases, anti Semites and a favourite of the program - people who just love to torment and upset the families of the victims. Then of course there has to be some pseudo-psychological mumbo jumbo about peoples deep need to believe in conspiracies, then we get into the last 10 minutes, were a load of cherry picked 'experts' demolish the whole thing as the wild ravings of conspiracy theoriests. Was this the one were the transvestite messiah himself David shayler popped up to rubbish the whole thing or was that the Lockerbie one?
 
Soily said:
It's been a while since I saw it, but I thought it was pretty typical of that programme. Devious and agenda driven, it follows the same template every time. Concentrate on the more far fetched claims, wave away the most sensible ones with a sentence, [....] then we get into the last 10 minutes, were a load of cherry picked 'experts' demolish the whole thing as the wild ravings of conspiracy theoriests.
Click to expand...


I have to confess I was present while it was on, but I wasn't paying attention so I can't really comment. (Probably chatting on the forum at the same time!) However, I've seen enough of these programmes to recognise the formula and you're spot on. The first three quarters builds up a big spooky pile of suspicion, not always very plausibly, then in the last ten to 15 minutes some "experts" just hand-wave the whole thing away.

The success of this depends on the evidence, of course. If you're talking "9/11 was an inside job" then it's not hard to do, and do it well. On the other hand, the formula depends on the basic assumption that every conspiracy theory is baseless nonsense, so it doesn't work so well if there are genuine questions.

Soily said:
Was this the one were the transvestite messiah himself David shayler popped up to rubbish the whole thing or was that the Lockerbie one?
Click to expand...


That was indeed the Lockerbie one, which I've watched two or three times. That was probably the programme's most inglorious hour. In the first section, some things were stated as fact which are most certainly not fact at all, but even so, they couldn't entirely help putting over the impression that they convicted the wrong guys and there was something deeply questionable going on. Then for the debacle, all they could do was wheel on David Shayler to announce that he was an MI5 insider who knew about these things, and take it from him, it's fine, they framed the guy because they really knew he did it, honest.

After seeing that, no, I don't trust that programme even when it seems plausible. (They had quite a good one on the Kennedy assassination I recall, but even so, the dishonesty of the Lockerbie one taints the whole concept.)

Rolfe.

[The detail on the Lockerbie one which I remember as most dishonest was that they wheeled on the inscrutable Bogomira Erac to explain how she saved a printout of the baggage loading record for Pan Am 103A from Frankfurt to Heathrow as a personal souvenir, which turned out to be the only piece of evidence remaining after every other copy of the baggage records for that airport on that day vanished completely within a few days of the incident. She stated that "it turned out that the printout showed that an unaccompanied bag had travelled in on a flight from Malta that morning", and that was presented as indisputed fact. The problem is that the printout shows nothing of the sort, and the trial court's finding that it did is one of the major stitch-up points of the whole saga.]
 
Soily said:
The key players would be examined about their actions under oath. The crime scene photos and other evidence not shown to hutton would be scrutinized. And most importantly, Kelly would be afforded what everyone else in this country is afforded, a verdict on how he died that is subject to proper legal levels of proof, rather than the politically motivated stitch up he actually got.
Click to expand...

Being on oath does not compel anyone to tell the truth, a coroner may exclude evidence, and Kelly had something most of us won't have which is an inquiry that looked into his last actions at some detail.

You really haven't given a reason why an inquiry would achieve what you apparently want.
 
Soily said:
Yes it's speculation. But cast your mind back to 2003, this was an absolutely huge story with international significance. Here was a man that could bring down governments and it seemed he was talking. Do you think he would have been under survelleince?
Click to expand...

That is just restating your original argument from personal incredulity, so the burden is still on you if you wish to use this argument beyond that.
 
Soily said:
Mmm in my experience they're terms which people use interchangeably, in England at least tablet would cover any variety of orally taken painkiller.
Click to expand...


It's just that my mother had a prescription for the stuff at the time, and it was caplets. That is, just elongated hard tablets. They would be absolute murder to crush, and I doubt if anyone would seriously try it when they're eay to swallow whole. I've never, ever come across Distalgesic in capsule form, so I'd require positive evidence that a capsule formulation even existed before taking the capsule assertion seriously.

Rolfe.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
I think an inquest should be carried out because an inquest should have been carried out in the first place and not replaced by the Hutton Inquiry.
Click to expand...

I really don't follow this line of reasoning, an inquest determines the cause of death, that has happened in this case so what would now having an inquest achieve? I don't think even his family want one do they?
 
Soily said:
I don't think it's a matter of being an expert in suicide, it's just something most well informed adults are aware of, that cutting your wrists usually doesn't result in death. Kelly must surely have known this, so why would he choose a messy, painful form of suicide with a low probability of success?
Click to expand...

Well an inquest wouldn't tell us this, albeit quite a few psychics would probably claim they could tell us.
 
The issue I have for even considering that he was killed (which is the only other option after suicide is discounted...) is that there is no evidence that suggests he was murdered.

The evidence we do have is that he killed himself.

And I should have added this to the comment above regarding coroners - even if such an inquest is held it would be usual practice in such a case to slap a 70 year confidentiality ruling on the autopsy and other reports. So if such an inquest was held and we simply got the same result i.e. a suicide would that satisfy people who seem to want there to be some something foul afoot beyond a person under terrible stress sadly ending their life? Somehow I doubt it.
 
Rolfe said:
It's just that my mother had a prescription for the stuff at the time, and it was caplets. That is, just elongated hard tablets. They would be absolute murder to crush, and I doubt if anyone would seriously try it when they're eay to swallow whole. I've never, ever come across Distalgesic in capsule form, so I'd require positive evidence that a capsule formulation even existed before taking the capsule assertion seriously.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...


See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6329041#post6329041
 
Darat said:
I really don't follow this line of reasoning, an inquest determines the cause of death, that has happened in this case so what would now having an inquest achieve? I don't think even his family want one do they?
Click to expand...

It might sound harsh, but What the family wants is irrelevant. The law was not followed properly and in light of the numerous doubts in the case an inquest is sorely needed. An inquest is a legal process. Witnesses are under oath and it's verdict has a legal standard of proof attached to it. Unlike hut ton the key players can be interrogated under oath about their actions, all the evidence not shown to hutton can be aired and the doubts of the numerous medical experts explored. I'm slightly baffled as to what your objection is to this.
 
Darat said:
That is just restating your original argument from personal incredulity, so the burden is still on you if you wish to use this argument beyond that.
Click to expand...

I don't wish to take the argument further than that, its my personal belief and I can't prove it. I'm not the police or the government, I don't have the power to investigate it myself. That's why the whole affair needs investigating properly beyond the amazingly superficial and careless Hutton process, whose sole purpose was to close the lid on the affair as quickly and neatly as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom