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

[Darat]

It might sound harsh, but What the family wants is irrelevant. ...snip...

I wouldn't say irrelevant but it can not be an overriding factor in making such decisions and I am thankful that our courts can take a family's wishes into consideration in such cases.

The law was not followed properly

That's your claim so I have to ask - in what way and please provide the evidence.

and in light of the numerous doubts in the case an inquest is sorely needed.

Which doubts?

And how would an inquest resolve these doubts?

An inquest is a legal process.

Agreed.

Witnesses are under oath and it's verdict has a legal standard of proof attached to it.

Agreed, well to be a pendent a coroner's court can return an open verdict which is a judgement of "we don't know".

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.

Again why should people who are part of a conspiracy that have already lied about on record suddenly decide to tell the truth because they are under oath? There is nothing compelling about such an oath. People lie under oath all the time.

"all the evidence not shown to hutton can be aired and the doubts of the numerous medical experts explored"

How do you know a coroner would allow this apparently unconsidered evidence to be entered? And how do you know there would be any doubts about the medical evidence to be explored if the autopsy and other reports were accessible by other experts? (And note Hutton has said he would be happy if such reports were made available to appropriate experts, which again is the usual practice.)

And again I am not against an inquest, but neither am I for an inquest, and I am not claiming there wasn't a conspiracy and I am happy to be shifted in any direction but it requires evidence to do so, speculation is not enough. So far you have not presented any evidence that casts any doubt on his death being anything but a tragic suicide so I can't see any reason for there to be another inquiry into the cause of his death.

 

[Rolfe]

I recall in the previous thread on this, Darat saying something like, I can't see why anyone would want an inquest. I queried his stance, and someone else posted back to indicate he thought Darat was actually being sarcastic. But it seems he isn't.

There should have been an inquest. Without one, due process wasn't followed. An inquest is a completely different animal from the Hutton inquiry, which has unpleasant overtones of Widgery to it. If a properly-conducted inquest came to the same conclusions as Hutton, it would have far greater force and credibility.

I can't see why anyone would rationally oppose the following of due process in this important matter.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

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.

...snip...

Fair enough but it doesn't therefore provide a reason why I should give any credence to your speculation about that point.

That's why the whole affair needs investigating properly beyond the amazingly superficial and careless Hutton process, ...snip...

Then what you want is not an coroner's inquest since all that would do would be examine evidence directly relating to his cause of death and in the end comes up with a judgement about the cause of death.

whose sole purpose was to close the lid on the affair as quickly and neatly as possible.

Any evidence that this was the case? After all the Hutton inquiry took longer than a coroner's inquest tends to do didn't it?

 

[Rolfe]

According to hutton, 67 milligrams of a parectemol was found in the stomach, 1/5 of one tablet and some residue of the plastic film that coats the tablet.

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/transcripts/hearing-trans28.htm

Well, that settles that, anyway.

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

...snipped "poisoning the well" attempt...

There should have been an inquest. Without one, due process wasn't followed.
...snip...

That's your claim so I have to ask - in what way and please provide the evidence.

An inquest is a completely different animal from the Hutton inquiry, which has unpleasant overtones of Widgery to it. If a properly-conducted inquest came to the same conclusions as Hutton, it would have far greater force and credibility.

...snip...

Why?

I can't see why anyone would rationally oppose the following of due process in this important matter.

Rolfe.

Who has opposed the following of due process?

 

[Soily]

Darat, in english law, An inquest is a legal requirement for anybody who dies a violent or unnatural death. Kelly was denied this right by a piece of government chicanery. As to why there should be an inquest, I refer you to my numerous posts in this thread where I have already answered this question several times. As to what doubts, the arguments are well rehearsed so I'm sure you already know about them - the many medical proffesioanls who query the verdict, the apparent moving of the body, the lack of fingerprints on the knife, the heat seeking helicopter that passed over the freshly dead Kelly but failed to spot him, the poorly conducted witness examinations at hutton, coe's false testimony amongst others. That you seemingly do not share any of these concerns is neither here nor there.

 

[Soily]

Who has opposed the following of due process?

You have. An inquest is a legal requirement http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-03981.pdf

A legal requirement that was subverted by the shabby political manovering of Hutton.

 

[Darat]

In english law, An inquest is a legal requirement for anybody who dies a violent or unnatural death. Kelly was denied this right by a piece of government chicanery.

...snip...

So you are saying that the Hutton inquest was illegal in some manner? (And the following is an argument from personal incredulity so make of it as you will) Why then has the government not be challenged in the courts.

Personally I suspect that what happened was unusual but not illegal in any way. But as ever I am happy to be shown the evidence that what happened was not due process.

As to why there should be an inquest, I refer you to my numerous posts in this thread where I have already answered this question several times. As to what doubts, the arguments are well rehearsed so I'm sure you already know about them - the many medical proffesioanls who query the verdict, the apparent moving of the body, the lack of fingerprints on the knife, the heat seeking helicopter that passed over the freshly dead Kelly but failed to spot him, the poorly conducted witness examinations at hutton, coe's false testimony amongst others. That you seemingly do not share any of these concerns is neither here nor there.

So you cannot not present one scrap of actual evidence that indicates he did not commit suicide, that's fine and I'll leave you to your speculations.

 

[Darat]

You have. An inquest is a legal requirement http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-03981.pdf

A legal requirement that was subverted by the shabby political manovering of Hutton.

Because you are now making a claim about me I will address it - please show me where I have opposed an inquest?

 

[Rolfe]

Darat, in english law, An inquest is a legal requirement for anybody who dies a violent or unnatural death. Kelly was denied this right by a piece of government chicanery. As to why there should be an inquest, I refer you to my numerous posts in this thread where I have already answered this question several times. As to what doubts, the arguments are well rehearsed so I'm sure you already know about them - the many medical proffesioanls who query the verdict, the apparent moving of the body, the lack of fingerprints on the knife, the heat seeking helicopter that passed over the freshly dead Kelly but failed to spot him, the poorly conducted witness examinations at hutton, coe's false testimony amongst others. That you seemingly do not share any of these concerns is neither here nor there.

Soily makes excellent points. As I've said before, my feeling is that this was probably a suicide, but I'm disturbed by the many doubts that keep surfacing, including a number of medical professionals who are concerned enough to write letters to the newspapers voicing those concerns.

It seems rather perverse to counter this with nothing more than the repeated assertion "move along folks, nothing to see here".

Rolfe.

 

[Darat]

Soily makes excellent points. As I've said before, my feeling is that this was probably a suicide, but I'm disturbed by the many doubts that keep surfacing, including a number of medical professionals who are concerned enough to write letters to the newspapers voicing those concerns.

It seems rather perverse to counter this with nothing more than the repeated assertion "move along folks, nothing to see here".

Rolfe.

Who has been making these repeated assertions of "move along folks, nothing to see here", I'd like to ask them some questions as to how they have come to that conclusion.

 

[Soily]

Because you are now making a claim about me I will address it - please show me where I have opposed an inquest?

Well I have obviously misread your many posts in this thread arguing against the given reasons for an inquest. You appear to think it's completely pointless, which is essentially an opposition to conducting one. An inquest is a legal requirement, hutton was a political inquiry into the circumstances surrounding kelly's death, but it just accepted the suicide verdict as a given and was really more about the BBCs war with the labour government about their dodgy dossier.

 

[manxman]

No he wasn't - he believed that Saddam still had WMD.

Care to show us some documentation Darat, thats not what he told giligan in the dodgy dossier, thats twice now you have made the claim.

 

[Darat]

Well I have obviously misread your many posts in this thread arguing against the given reasons for an inquest. You appear to think it's completely pointless, which is essentially an opposition to conducting one. An inquest is a legal requirement, hutton was a political inquiry into the circumstances surrounding kelly's death, but it just accepted the suicide verdict as a given and was really more about the BBCs war with the labour government about their dodgy dossier.

Nothing could be further from the truth, and you really haven't been reading my posts if you have concluded I am opposed to an inquest. I have said a couple of times that I am neither for nor against an inquest, I am happy to be persuaded by evidence that there should be an inquest so far the evidence to support that is rather lacking.


Let me give you an example.

Some folk claim there wasn't "a lot" of blood present to account for his death yet when I go to look at what evidence is available I can see no reason nor evidence to come to such a conclusion. Furthermore the evidence that is avialable contradicts that conclusion. So I have no reason to consider the claim "not a lot of blood" truthful therefore it does not provide a reason for why an inquest should be held (one that would consider that there not being a lot of blood casts some doubt on the cause of his death being suicide).

 

[Darat]

Care to show us some documentation Darat, thats not what he told giligan.

My views on this comes from this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/31/davidkelly.iraq1

 

[Soily]

Nothing could be further from the truth, and you really haven't been reading my posts if you have concluded I am opposed to an inquest. I have said a couple of times that I am neither for nor against an inquest, I am happy to be persuaded by evidence that there should be an inquest so far the evidence to support that is rather lacking.


Let me give you an example.

Some folk claim there wasn't "a lot" of blood present to account for his death yet when I go to look at what evidence is available I can see no reason nor evidence to come to such a conclusion. Furthermore the evidence that is avialable contradicts that conclusion. So I have no reason to consider the claim "not a lot of blood" truthful therefore it does not provide a reason for why an inquest should be held (one that would consider that there not being a lot of blood casts some doubt on the cause of his death being suicide).

I've never made an argument about the amount of blood present. People who, unlike you or I, were actually there have made that argument. You know if we have an inquest the crime scene photos will be released and this and many other matters settled. This did not happen at Hutton. Hutton himself had a secret shufti at one photo and declared himself satisfied about the conflicting testimony of the position of the body. Not really good enough is it?

 

[Soily]

My views on this comes from this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/31/davidkelly.iraq1

This is that article http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/31/huttonreport.iraq

He appears to largely be writing in an official capacity, outlining the opinions of others. But he does make it clear that he felt sad dams threat was modest and any military action proportionate. In light of his concerns of the exaggerated intelligence claims, it's pretty hard to make an argument that he was in favour of the war we actually got. Although that doesn't stop the likes of Aaronovitz casually stating as fact that he was.

 

[Darat]

I've never made an argument about the amount of blood present. People who, unlike you or I, were actually there have made that argument. You know if we have an inquest the crime scene photos will be released and this and many other matters settled. This did not happen at Hutton. Hutton himself had a secret shufti at one photo and declared himself satisfied about the conflicting testimony of the position of the body. Not really good enough is it?

They would not be released, the coroner would (if he or she considered them relevant) have access to them like Hutton did and if the coroner followed usual practice they would have them sealed after the inquest as Hutton did.

So all you would be acheiving is another person who may also have "... a secret shufti at one photo and declared himself satisfied about the conflicting testimony of the position of the body."

 

[Darat]

This is that article http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/aug/31/huttonreport.iraq

He appears to largely be writing I. An official capacity, outlining the opinions of others. But he does make it clear that he felt sad dams threat was modest and any military action proportionate. In light of his concerns of the exaggerated intelligence claims, it's pretty hard to make an argument that he was in favour of the war we actually got. Although that doesn't stop the likes of Aaronovitz casually stating as fact that he was.

No one in this thread has made such a claim and I have to say I don't really know what relevance it has whether he was gun-ho for a nuclear attack on Iraq or he thought we should stop ice-cream sales to them in regards to his suicide?

 

[Soily]

They would not be released, the coroner would (if he or she considered them relevant) have access to them like Hutton did and if the coroner followed usual practice they would have them sealed after the inquest as Hutton did.

So all you would be acheiving is another person who may also have "... a secret shufti at one photo and declared himself satisfied about the conflicting testimony of the position of the body."

Unlike at hutton, the photos could be scrutinised in light of the subsequent questions raised by key parties on the day, the possible movement of the body, the amount of blood, the arrangement of the items next to Kelly etc. To suggest yet again that it's pointless is absurd.