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

Soily said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please. The title of this thread blatantly suggests some type of sinister effort.

I would also suggest reading my posts. I quite explicitly said the benefits of a renewed inquiry outweighed the limited costs.
 
Soily said:
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.
Click to expand...

A number of people have produced conspiracy theories on the death of David Kelly. Michael Shrimpton has come up with the theory that Dr Kelly was killed in a manner that wouldn't be out of place in a Tom Clancy novel. In fact his theory WAS from a Tom Clancy novel.

And Norman Baker's book really was not excellent. The unfounded speculation and surmising went on pretty much all the way through the book (Could that radio mast have been used to contact Tony Blair's plane on its way to Japan?)

But yes, there probably should be a new inquiry.
 
angrysoba said:
A number of people have produced conspiracy theories on the death of David Kelly. Michael Shrimpton has come up with the theory that Dr Kelly was killed in a manner that wouldn't be out of place in a Tom Clancy novel. In fact his theory WAS from a Tom Clancy novel.

And Norman Baker's book really was not excellent. The unfounded speculation and surmising went on pretty much all the way through the book (Could that radio mast have been used to contact Tony Blair's plane on its way to Japan?)

But yes, there probably should be a new inquiry.
Click to expand...
Who the hell is Michael Shrimpton and does he also think he's the messiah as well by any chance because the media has an uncanny tendency to find these people who attach themselves to a controvseial issue and also happen to be completely insane. It's much better to present them as representative of a viewpoint so as to smear all those rational non conspiratlist professionals who question the verdict with the same brush.
 
angrysoba said:
He's somebody with a conspiracy theory about David Kelly.

Rowena Thursby seems to have a few theories as well:

http://tiny.cc/ktz54

David Halpin clearly has a theory as well:

http://dhalpin.infoaction.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=15
Click to expand...
Hoho you found someone who can be characterized as an anti-Semite, that's rule 101.

And it's a bit of a stretch to say that Rowena thursby post is a conspiracy theory. If you remember, the Kelly affair was a big **** storm before he died, and the behaviour of the new labour government thoroughly disgraceful. Nobody outside the self styled debunkers and the comments pages of the daily mail ever mention the 'blair dun it' theory. Those two groups actually have a lot in common, like shadowy mirrors of each other.

So what about the many medical and legal professionals who think the verdict is unsafe? Do a few clowns make their concerns some how illegitimate or perverse?
 
Soily said:
Hoho you found someone who can be characterized as an anti-Semite, that's rule 101.

And it's a bit of a stretch to say that Rowena thursby post is a conspiracy theory. If you remember, the Kelly affair was a big **** storm before he died, and the behaviour of the new labour government thoroughly disgraceful. Nobody outside the self styled debunkers and the comments pages of the daily mail ever mention the 'blair dun it' theory. Those two groups actually have a lot in common, like shadowy mirrors of each other.
Click to expand...

Well, hang on a minute there! I was originally responding to your claim:


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.
Click to expand...

Now maybe you genuinely couldn't think of one critic who had offered a specific conspiracy theory but all I did was offer you three. It's not *my* fault if *you* think they are kooks (please be advised that it is you is suggesting David Halpin - or maybe Rowena Thursby? - could be characterized as anti-Semitic?).

Forgive me if I think you are being a bit disingenuous with your implied claim that those who want to see an inquest merely want to see all the i's dotted and the t's crossed and have no more particular notion one way or the other about whether it was suicide or not.

So what about the many medical and legal professionals who think the verdict is unsafe? Do a few clowns make their concerns some how illegitimate or perverse?
Click to expand...

David Halpin is probably the most outspoken medical professional who thinks the verdict is unsafe and yet when *I* mention him, *you* say he could be characterized as an anti-Semite.

So, apart from Norman Baker, Rowena Thursby, Michael Shrimpton, David Halpin and the commenters at the Daily Mail's website no one has actually furthered any particular conspiracy theory about David Kelly's death?
 
angrysoba said:
Well, hang on a minute there! I was originally responding to your claim:




Now maybe you genuinely couldn't think of one critic who had offered a specific conspiracy theory but all I did was offer you three. It's not *my* fault if *you* think they are kooks (please be advised that it is you is suggesting David Halpin - or maybe Rowena Thursby? - could be characterized as anti-Semitic?).

Forgive me if I think you are being a bit disingenuous with your implied claim that those who want to see an inquest merely want to see all the i's dotted and the t's crossed and have no more particular notion one way or the other about whether it was suicide or not.



David Halpin is probably the most outspoken medical professional who thinks the verdict is unsafe and yet when *I* mention him, *you* say he could be characterized as an anti-Semite.

So, apart from Norman Baker, Rowena Thursby, Michael Shrimpton, David Halpin and the commenters at the Daily Mail's website no one has actually furthered any particular conspiracy theory about David Kelly's death?
Click to expand...
Norman Baker offered a piece of ill advised speculation which he labeled as speculation at the end of his book. I think he was unwise to do so but he's a pretty credible bloke, he's also a minister in current British government so it doesn't get any more mainstream than that. I've yet to see Thursby's conspiracy theory. I still don't know who Shrimpton is, is he Jesus by any chance? And Halpin is a well known whacko (what is his theory, the jews did it?). All you need now is to mention that David Icke thinks its a conspiracy and have done with it.

However, in the world of credible, rational professionals, only Norman Baker that I know of as ever offered a theory, labeled as speculation in his book.

Michael Powers QC is hardly a whacko and his views are actually the ones shared by most of the skeptics http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/p/5212/Michael+John.aspx
 
The post-mortem has been released: http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/pathologist-report-dpa.pdf should be interesting to see what effect this will have on the conspiracy theories about his death. BBC article about the release: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11603539

ETA: I should have read the BBC article - how suprising this doesn't alter the CTer's view at all..
"...'Major conflict'

One of those, former coroner Dr Michael Powers, told the BBC that there was "nothing new" in the post-mortem report, ...snip...

"There is a need still to address many of issues which have already been raised and which these reports do not answer," he said.

They did not resolve the "major conflict" in the evidence about the amount of blood found at the scene and uncertainty over the number of pills Dr Kelly had taken.

"He may have taken far less than 29 tablets," Dr Powers said. "If he were only to have taken six to eight tablets, what does that say about his intent to take his own life? I don't believe any of the evidence we have seen or heard to date can answer those questions."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
He's right isn't he? This is exactly the same stuff reported by Hutton 7 years ago. I can't speak for those medical professionals who have expressed their skepticism about the findings, but I doubt just saying the same conclusions again in slightly more detail is going to make their doubts disappear.
 
Soily said:
He's right isn't he? This is exactly the same stuff reported by Hutton 7 years ago. I can't speak for those medical professionals who have expressed their skepticism about the findings, but I doubt just saying the same conclusions again in slightly more detail is going to make their doubts disappear.
Click to expand...

Well, Soily...

What would, in a Popperian sense, make the doubts disappear for you?
 
Oh, and by the way, I re-read parts of Norman Baker's detective novel and found that there were plenty of people who were espousing "theories" about who "killed" David Kelly.

Apparently, someone called "the writer Sterling Seagrave" thinks that David Kelly was possibly murdered by a group of people called the "Grey Ghosts" operating out of the Pentagon.

He also thinks that the same people may have been responsible for the death of a journalist called Danny Casalaro who was chasing up leads on yet another conspiracy theory called the October surprise in which apparently Ronald Reagan bribed the Ayatollah Khomeini into keeping the US embassy staff hostage until after Reagan won the presidential election campaign against Carter.

According to Norman Baker, some bloke, "the historian John Simkin", agrees suggesting that the Americans done away with him and then somehow bribed Tony Blairs with the whole thing. Very dastardly!

Brilliantly, John Simkin had this theory before Norman Baker wrote the book. I say "brilliantly" because even though Norman Baker reports that the historian John Simkin had told him of this theory in his book, it is the book itself that seems to have convinced Mr Simkin!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11738

BTW, I know it is an ad hom, but Simkin and the vast majority of those who seem attracted to him are multiple conspiracy theorists such as believers in the JFK conspiracy and at least one Lyndon LaRouche fan!
 
angrysoba; said:
Well, Soily...

What would, in a Popperian sense, make the doubts disappear for you?
Click to expand...

Thing is, hunt thinks it was suicide. He said so in 2003. This is just his autopsy report which says the same thing, what else is it going to say? I don't understand what it's meant to prove. Unless I have misunderstood the critics, they're objection was to hunts conclusions ( I believe they may suspect he is a freddie patell), and the lack of proper inquest. How does this change any of that?
 
Last edited:
Soily said:
Thing is, hunt thinks it was suicide. He said so in 2003. This is just his autopsy report which says the same thing, what else is it going to say? I don't understand what it's meant to prove. Unless I have misunderstood the critics, they're objection was to hunts conclusions ( I believe they may suspect he is a freddie patell), and the lack of proper inquest. How does this change any of that?
Click to expand...

It changes nothing for me. All we have is the paperwork that says Dr Kelly committed suicide in the open.

But what do you want to see? What evidence is going to be a better starting point for your own investigation?
 
angrysoba; said:
It changes nothing for me. All we have is the paperwork that says Dr Kelly committed suicide in the open.

But what do you want to see? What evidence is going to be a better starting point for your own investigation?
Click to expand...

I agree with the consensus of the critics that Kelly should be afforded what is normally the legal right of everyone in is country, and that's an inquest.
 
TraneWreck said:
Please. The title of this thread blatantly suggests some type of sinister effort.
Click to expand...

Welcome to a soily thread. Lots of sinister language and blatant nodding in one direction, then furious back-pedalling when called on that.


You won't ever get Soily to admit that (s)he thinks that this was a conspiracy. The very definition of JAQing off.


Soily: If there was an inquest, and it came to the exact same conclusions as Hutton, and said the exact same things, what would you then do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom