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

Soily

Muse
S
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
740
Hello forum.

One of the many reasons skeptics give to doubt the official account of David Kelly's death is the disparity in accounts of the position of the body. The dog handlers who first discovered the body say he was slumped against a tree. Subsequent witnesses say his body was laying flat next to the tree, some accounts saying his head was against the base of the tree. This would appear to suggest that persons unknown moved the body in the time between it first been found and the arrival of the paramedics and others. The problem is there are enough doubts, doubts which hutton exploited at the inquiry, that the witnesses could just be describing the same event in different ways. Hutton slightly blithely reconciled the differing accounts by making this argument. However in an interview with the mail yesterday which I can't link to, the paramedic who attended to Kelly says the body was some distance from the tree, far enough away for him to get behind it and apply heart monitors:

He said: ‘He was lying flat out some distance from the tree. He definitely wasn’t leaning against it. I remember saying to the copper, “Are you sure he hasn’t fallen out of the tree?”

‘When I was there the body was far enough away from the tree for someone to get behind it. I know that because I stood there when we were using the electrodes to check his heart. Later I learned that the dog team said they had found him propped up against the tree. He wasn’t when we got there.
Click to expand...

This would appear to all but confirm the fact that kelly's body was moved by persons unknown in the time between its initial discovery and the arrival of the paramedics.

Clearly a proper inquest is required, with all the evidence released including the crime scene photographs, because the official explanation is increasingly discredited.*
 
Last edited:
Yes it's always worth exercising caution with the mail, but in fairness they've largely stuck to the questioning the official story rather than wild theorising.

And if they've reported the paramedic accurately, it's awfully hard to reconcile what he says with the statement of the dog handler who found kelly's body:

2 A. He was at the base of the tree with almost his head and
3 his shoulders just slumped back against the tree.
Click to expand...
 
Ok, I'll bite. Why move the body?

What could the people who killed him possibly gain from this act?
 
We can't know why it was moved until the people on the ground that day are properly questioned under oath about their actions, something which never happened at hutton.

I think we can all agree that if it was moved then at the very least we know someone is hiding something. About what we can't know at this stage.
 
No, we can't surmise that at all. The most we can state is that someone moved the body. You can't read anything into that, because there seems to be no reason for it whatsoever.

I genuinely cannot come up with a single possible benefit to moving the body. None. So ifwe assume the body was moved, and we assume there is a cover-up you have to ask why they would go to the effort. If you are planning a murder and covering it up you would not do something as stupid as move the body without good reason.
 
Just because you personally can't think of a reason why someone would do it doesn't mean it wasn't done.

And yes I believe we can surmise that if the body was moved then someone is hiding something. Nobody involved has ever said they moved the body, and indeed the most likely candidate DCI Coe, who was with the body immediately after it was found, has explicitly denied doing so.
 
So we can surmise that they lied about or didn't remember moving the body.

How do we get from that to "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!!11!"?

Seriously, if I were part of a team that wanted to implement a conspiracy and murder someone like Dr Kelly, the one thing I would make sure I didn't do is something pointless that would indicate to people there might be something going on.

In this instance you have to assume one of the following:

1. The Mail is at it's usual standard of journalism and isn't reporting what the Paramedic said properly.

2. The Paramedic is lying or mistaken.

3. DCI Coe moved the body for no reason then lied about it, knowing full well that if the paramedic came back there would be a discrepancy.

4. DCI Coe moved the body for a reason that I can't imagine but maybe you can? Some reason that means that it would look more like a suicide if the body wasn't up against a tree maybe, despite knowing that the Paramedic would notice the move and it would get reported.This surmises that Coe et al either did not think anyone would be smart enough to put two and two together (which is a ridiculous idea if this was a government cover-up, because say what you like about them most MP's and other Government people are pretty damn smart) or simply didn't care that it would be noticed. This leaves us with a further problem. IF they didn't care that the move would be noticed, why bother moving it and just try to bluster past the whatever it was that meant they moved the body in the first place? If you're going to try and push past something like that why bother causing the discrepancy in the first place?

5. They moved him FOR the Paramedic and then lied/didn't think it worth reporting.

It seems to me that it is far more reasonable to assume that either the Paramedic is lying or mistaken (story embellishments may account for the "fell out of the tree" comment he may not have even said) or the Mail skewed what he said. It's far LESS likely that a large scale government conspiracy would move a body less than a hundred feet from where it was found by a dog handler in order to cover something up or just for a laugh.
 
MarkCorrigan said:
So we can surmise that they lied about or didn't remember moving the body.

How do we get from that to "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!!11!"?

Seriously, if I were part of a team that wanted to implement a conspiracy and murder someone like Dr Kelly, the one thing I would make sure I didn't do is something pointless that would indicate to people there might be something going on.

In this instance you have to assume one of the following:

1. The Mail is at it's usual standard of journalism and isn't reporting what the Paramedic said properly.

2. The Paramedic is lying or mistaken.

3. DCI Coe moved the body for no reason then lied about it, knowing full well that if the paramedic came back there would be a discrepancy.

4. DCI Coe moved the body for a reason that I can't imagine but maybe you can? Some reason that means that it would look more like a suicide if the body wasn't up against a tree maybe, despite knowing that the Paramedic would notice the move and it would get reported.This surmises that Coe et al either did not think anyone would be smart enough to put two and two together (which is a ridiculous idea if this was a government cover-up, because say what you like about them most MP's and other Government people are pretty damn smart) or simply didn't care that it would be noticed. This leaves us with a further problem. IF they didn't care that the move would be noticed, why bother moving it and just try to bluster past the whatever it was that meant they moved the body in the first place? If you're going to try and push past something like that why bother causing the discrepancy in the first place?

5. They moved him FOR the Paramedic and then lied/didn't think it worth reporting.

It seems to me that it is far more reasonable to assume that either the Paramedic is lying or mistaken (story embellishments may account for the "fell out of the tree" comment he may not have even said) or the Mail skewed what he said. It's far LESS likely that a large scale government conspiracy would move a body less than a hundred feet from where it was found by a dog handler in order to cover something up or just for a laugh.
Click to expand...
6. Prior to the accepted discovery of the body person or persons unknown discovered it and moved it, perhaps (a) as part of an attempt to determine if it was indeed a dead body; (b) as part of a robbery or attempted robbery or (c) for some other reason unrelated to the death.
 
We haven't got to "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!!11!"? We have got to 'somebody moved the body'.

And vast government conspiracies are entirely in your imagination. In fact most people who question the official account of kelly's death make no mention of conspiracies, of the large government variety or any other. They offer no alternative theories. They just point out the flaws in the official verdict. More often than not it's the self styled conspiracy debunkers who mention vast government conspiracies, riffing on things that exist entirely in their imagination.

I completely accept that the witneses could be mistaken, but I am unable to reconcile the two accounts of the body position without venturing into the territory that the daily mail is making up quotes. I can't get any other reading from the article other than the body was far enough from the tree for the paramedic to get in behind it to apply the heart monitory, a specific detail he would have to have actually made up if we are to dismiss it.
 
Last edited:
I take issue with the thread's title - I don't see anything that "obviously" means the body was moved.
 
The quote in the first post is a direct quote from the paramedic, so to dismiss it as the newspapers spin would mean they have either made up a quote or radically changed what he said.
 
Soily said:
We haven't got to "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!!!11!"? We have got to 'somebody moved the body'.
Click to expand...
Ok, why? If you're going to posit that someone moved the body, there must be a reason. What is it?
Soily said:
And vast government conspiracies are entirely in your imagination. In fact most people who question the official account of kelly's death make no mention of conspiracies, of the large government variety or any other. They offer no alternative theories.
Click to expand...

So what good are they? If you don't offer an alternative hypothesis, even if there are mistakes in the primary accepted theory then you have no reason to doubt the accepted theory to the point of dismissing it, or considering it credible that it's so very wrong. You can't replace a logical, consistent and evidenced idea for nothing, it doesn't help.


Soily said:
They just point out the flaws in the official verdict. More often than not it's the self styled conspiracy debunkers who mention vast government conspiracies, riffing on things that exist entirely in their imagination.
Click to expand...
Actually, if the official theory states it was a suicide, then presumably it is either a suicide or they are trying to cover it up. If Dr Kelly was mugged and killed, for example, why would they bother to cover it up? In fact, if he was killed at all, why not just SAY he was robbed and killed, or killed by a person or persons unknown? If there is a problem with the official theory to the extant that you can credibly doubt it's validity which you seem to be pushing towards, and most people I've ever come across who state it was not a suicide outright say, then why on earth report it as a suicide? It's far easer to mask a murder as a murder by someone else. If the official story isn't correct, why did the pathologists and police et al lie?

I'm serious. If this wasn't a suicide by a desperate man then why claim it was? It would be far more intelligent to claim it was a murder.
Soily said:
I completely accept that the witneses could be mistaken, but I am unable to reconcile the two accounts of the body position without venturing into the territory that the daily mail is making up quotes.
Click to expand...
The Daily Mail making things up? say it aint so !

Soily said:
I can't get any other reading from the article other than the body was far enough from the tree for the paramedic to get in behind it to apply the heart monitory, a specific detail he would have to have actually made up if we are to dismiss it.
Click to expand...
Or that he moved the body himself to do it. Or that it was moved just before he arrived so that he COULD do it. Or that it was moved by someone unconnected, as catsmate mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Your speculation, and you inducing others into speculation is completely irrelevant. If the body was moved it was moved and there is a reason for it. I don't know what that reason is and neither do you. That's one of the many reasons a proper inquest needs to be conducted to help properly establish the facts, something that has not adequately been done. The idea that you have to provide a detailed alternative theory in order to question an official account of something is one of the professional debunkers most tiresome debating tricks. It's a bit like saying at a trial that even if the defendant can prove he didn't do it, that he'll still be convicted unless he can prove who did do it.

And it's very unlikely the body was moved by a person unconnected. From the moment of discovery the body was surrounded by 'official' people, be it Coe, other police, medical people and so forth. And the area was cordonend off when the police arrived, so for an unconnected person to have moved it would appear to be difficult if not impossible.

I would have thought it unproffesional for the police to move a body at a crime scene prior to the medical professionals and pathologist arriving and coe said he didn't move it anyway. And I can't see why the paramedic would say somebody moved the body if that somebody was himself. That makes no sense. So we're back to the initial problem, the person who found the body said it was slumped against the tree, and the paramedic arriving later said it was far enough away from the tree for him to get in behind it to apply the heart monitor. I can't reconcile those two statements.
 
Soily said:
The quote in the first post is a direct quote from the paramedic, so to dismiss it as the newspapers spin would mean they have either made up a quote or radically changed what he said.
Click to expand...

Well newspapers such as the Mail do often make things up, and more regularly will alter the context to give a quote a quite different meaning. However that is not necessary in this case - all we have (it appears) is someone who was there who has heard/read some other stuff from others that were there and he thinks it doesn't match his memory and we all know how unreliable eye witness testimony is. Also I can't see why both versions can't be true by the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom