Neither do I. I didn't raise the issue. I was merely correcting what I feel is a false representation of kelly's views. People like Aaronovitz say stuff like, of course Kelly was in favour of the war, which is a massive overstatement of the known facts.
Dr David Kelly's body 'had obviously been moved'
- Thread starter Soily
- Start date
-
- Tags
- david kelly
I don't accept that type of argument, any legal case could be looked at again if we used those criteria, that is why (for example) the appeal court has to be convinced that new evidence found since a conviction could have changed the outcome of the trial - having a few doubts and niggles is not a good reason to have another inquest/inquiry/trial.
I think previously an inquiry has acted as an inquest in cases of mass deaths, ie a plane crash, where the cause of death is obvious. I don't think it had ever been used to subvert an inquest into the violent death of an individual. An inquiry taking the place of an inquest, as in hutton, is simply completely inadequate as it has none of the legal standards of evidence and proof.
That would seem to support what I said earlier - do you have references for this?
The three times an inquest hasn't been held - I'm (independent from this discussion) interested to see what the legal basis is for such "exemptions".
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Just for information, the only other case I could find of an individual death where an inquiry has replaced a public inquest is this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/23/home-secretary-7-july-public-inquiry
Prior to Kelly, it had only been used for mass deaths such as the Shipman murders and rail crashes etc.
Last edited:
Hardly surprising new labour nobbled inquests, they were never that keen on things like evidence and due process. Let's not forget their infamous inquiries act, which let ministers control the terms and methods of all public inquiries. I think, what we need is less politically rigged inquiries and more good old fashioned tried and tested legal processes like inquests.
Thanks Prof - so due process was followed.
its already been explained, i though it could have been 3 times an inquiry had been substituted for an inquest, turns out dr kelly was only the second.
You both appear to use a non-standard definition for "due process [of law]" - from what has been posted (although not sourced as far as I can see) it appears that an inquest was not legally necessary so the claim that it was in some way unlawful i.e. not due process [of law] is wrong.
You may believe what happened was wrong but it was not legally wrong.
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
Just the other day I leaned a folding chair against the wall.
I came back a few hours later, AND IT WAS FLAT ON THE GROUND.
Who moved it, you ask? Likely ghosts.
I honestly knew nothing about this conspiracy before clicking on the link, but the nature of the criticisms of the "OFFICIAL STORY" aren't really that impressive. A lot of reliance on unqualified eye-witnesses wrapped up in a chaotic moment: the life's blood of the conspiracy theory.
To begin, here are events that would generally make the murder of a weapons inspector plausible:
1) They outed Valorie Plame because her husband called BS on the yellow cake from Niger claim. This compromised countless undercover operatives and plausibly lead to some deaths.
2) We tortured the **** out of LOTS of people. The distance between torturing the **** out of someone and murder isn't very great. It's also highly likely that we did murder some of those detainees:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/20...rs-exposes-the-truth-about-the-2006-suicides/
Here are the reasons why it's implausible:
1) I was alive back then. I read Scott Ritter's book and listened to Hans Blix. There was ample available information that proved the case for war to be total ********. No one cared. The notion that one British weapons inspector could have derailed that war machine, especially when 75-80% of the American population supported it, is bunk. Hell, Powell's obviously false presentation was debunked in real time.
2) There were many critics with a higher profile and more damning information than Kelly. Ambassador Wilson wasn't killed. It would have been much cleaner to murder him, if they were in the business of doing such things, than sloppily retaliate against his wife in a way that endangered countless unrelated operatives. Kelly's position was arguably supportive of the war, he just criticized individual claims.
3) I forgot to add the most important one: the fact that they've kept it a secret. We've learned about far greater crimes in much more elaborate detail, yet they managed to stay hush-hush about this. Not likely.
As for the specific case, it seems like a battle of the sciences. Without digging into it, some people with MD after their name think the case is BS, some don't. Unlike 9-11, which was exhaustively studied and investigated in great detail (and a total lack of dissent among published experts), re-examining a single death is not a particularly costly or unusual occurance.
Knowing as little as I do, I don't see any reason to deny another serious inquiry into the event. My guess is that it will reveal it to be a suicide.
I came back a few hours later, AND IT WAS FLAT ON THE GROUND.
Who moved it, you ask? Likely ghosts.
I honestly knew nothing about this conspiracy before clicking on the link, but the nature of the criticisms of the "OFFICIAL STORY" aren't really that impressive. A lot of reliance on unqualified eye-witnesses wrapped up in a chaotic moment: the life's blood of the conspiracy theory.
To begin, here are events that would generally make the murder of a weapons inspector plausible:
1) They outed Valorie Plame because her husband called BS on the yellow cake from Niger claim. This compromised countless undercover operatives and plausibly lead to some deaths.
2) We tortured the **** out of LOTS of people. The distance between torturing the **** out of someone and murder isn't very great. It's also highly likely that we did murder some of those detainees:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/20...rs-exposes-the-truth-about-the-2006-suicides/
Here are the reasons why it's implausible:
1) I was alive back then. I read Scott Ritter's book and listened to Hans Blix. There was ample available information that proved the case for war to be total ********. No one cared. The notion that one British weapons inspector could have derailed that war machine, especially when 75-80% of the American population supported it, is bunk. Hell, Powell's obviously false presentation was debunked in real time.
2) There were many critics with a higher profile and more damning information than Kelly. Ambassador Wilson wasn't killed. It would have been much cleaner to murder him, if they were in the business of doing such things, than sloppily retaliate against his wife in a way that endangered countless unrelated operatives. Kelly's position was arguably supportive of the war, he just criticized individual claims.
3) I forgot to add the most important one: the fact that they've kept it a secret. We've learned about far greater crimes in much more elaborate detail, yet they managed to stay hush-hush about this. Not likely.
As for the specific case, it seems like a battle of the sciences. Without digging into it, some people with MD after their name think the case is BS, some don't. Unlike 9-11, which was exhaustively studied and investigated in great detail (and a total lack of dissent among published experts), re-examining a single death is not a particularly costly or unusual occurance.
Knowing as little as I do, I don't see any reason to deny another serious inquiry into the event. My guess is that it will reveal it to be a suicide.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
The chair analogy is pretty poor, and doesn't actually reflect what the witnesses say. As for the political context and the innuendo, you appear to be replying to some conspiracy theory in your mind that you are the subliminally transferring to the critics. Apart from one Ill advices piece of speculation at the end of an otherwise excellent book by Norman Baker I genuinely can't think of one critic who has offered any specific theory, conspiracy or otherwise, about David Kelly. They have in fact merely pointed out the gross inadequacies of the way Dr Kelly's death was handled.
TraneWreck
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,929
Then so what?
I worked in a legal clinic on the Southside of Chicago providing services for indigent clients. I've seen a case mishandled a time or two. If there's no indication of anything sinister, there's no evidence supporting foul play, there's no suspect, there's no one with a motive, why should we care about this beyond any other display of government inadequacy?
Or are you just asking questions?
You should be commended for having the keen ability to use witnesses to dismiss an obvious joke.
The larger point being, of course, that there's nothing unusual, surprising, and certainly nothing sinister about a body being SLIGHTLY moved. When I read the title I thought it was a "killed in one place, moved to another" issue. This example of a "moved" body is trivial beyond words.
Last edited:
Again you are trying to attach a motive to the critics that is somehow questionable or improper. A seemingly good and important man was treated incredibly shabbily in both life and death and that tends to upset people with any sense of justice or standards. Combine that with the genuine concerns over the safety of the verdict and theres no great conspiracy theory fantasy behind the desire to have a proper inquest, which appears to be the innuendo you're aiming for.