Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Death of David Kelly


Recommended Posts

Im sure all of the british members are aware of the case of Dr.David Kelly who was the source of a BBC story which shows that documents with relation to Iraqs WMD were 'sexed up'. There was a lot of controversy surrounding his death which culminated in the Hutton inquiry to see if there was any govt. involvement in his death.

The ambulance driver and paramedics who arrived at the scene of Dr.Kellys death stated that there was not enough blood present for him to have died by slashing his wrists.

Any other evidence or speculation on this topic. Our American and European friends , well everybody indeed should google this topic as it this report was the reason Britain went into Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

John

One of the State Department intelligence estimates officials who was on the wrong side of the analysis on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction conclusions (he could find none) died mysteriously.

I don't have his name but he perished by hurtling down the side of the State Department building, or Foggy Bottom. Suicide of course. Would have been a bit awkward to say "we pitched him out on his head" ....

Landed in a basement window well.

High Fall.

Of course his little analysis group was the only one vindicated when the WMD hunt came up empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is true that Kelly died in suspicious circumstances. This is partly due to the examination of the body. The motivation for the suicide is also unclear. Kelly was a devoted husband and father. Close friends claim that he would never have committed suicide because it would have caused so much distress to the ones he loved.

However, it is difficult to work out who had the motivation to kill Kelly. His death only drew attention to his role in the UK decision to join Bush in the illegal invasion of Iraq. Blair had no option to set up a public inquiry. Although this had no more validity than the Warren Commission it did reveal a great deal of underhand behaviour by the government.

I suspect if Kelly was murdered the people who were responsible were those who wanted to expose Blair’s deception. Like with the JFK assassination, this could have involved rogue members of the intelligence services. However, this was not done to keep him quiet. It was done so his story could be told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Not just Kelly, there are MANY mysterious deaths of scientists. Just google "dead scientists" and read, you will be mindblown.

WHAT is going on??? Last time I checked it was up to 64!!

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I believe both Hutton and Blair should be in court over the Kelly case for perverting the course of justice.

Of course, Hutton and Blair are not the only ones - but Hutton's inquiry was an obvious whitewash that blatantly and willfully overlooked evidence that the death was not suicide. Someone must have given the nod to this - and repsonsibility presumably goes to the top.

I posted a comment along these lines to the Daly Mail article yesterday, but the Mail was apparently not game to publish it.

Perhaps I shouldn't be churlish. Rather like Dr Johnson's dogs walking on hind legs, the surprising thing is that the Mail covers this explosive story at all.

I feel more more angry abou the role of 'public' broadcasters such as the BBC and in Australia, the ABC.

I was in Britain during part of the Hutton Inquiry in 2003. I listened to various BBC radio channels over several weeks. Not once did I hear questions raised on air about the underlying premise of suicide. I mentioned this to an old friend. He told me that he had a job finding anyone who believed the official story.

When our public broadcasters prove to be little more than another arm of the cryptocracy, we should question whether there are worth having any more. They give the impression of 'balance', but it's no more than that on hot issues such as this. They consequently help legitimize the mass media in the eyes of left wingers who are apt to distrust the coverage of privately-owned media. We might be better off if they were abolished - leaving people with no illusions about what interests control the news flow.

A question for British participants. Was any protest allowed in BBC coverage when Blair refused to even hold a public inquiry over the 7/7 bombings in London? Or has this once-proud broadcasting institution become a total waste of space, or worse?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid,

IMHO the BBC is now a total waste of time. Even the BEEB's hard-hitting documentary series 'Panorama' is bland and limits itself quite substantially in it's choice of subject. Occasionally, BBC2's Newsnight will kick in with something of note, but I have been particularly distrurbed recently by their reliance on a questionable pundit rolled out under different job titles for different purposes to prop up the government line. At best it's lazy, at worst it's implies a lack of impartiality which casts doubt on their effectiveness.

The only place in the UK where you will find controversial news and opinion is Channel 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sid,

IMHO the BBC is now a total waste of time. Even the BEEB's hard-hitting documentary series 'Panorama' is bland and limits itself quite substantially in it's choice of subject. Occasionally, BBC2's Newsnight will kick in with something of note, but I have been particularly distrurbed recently by their reliance on a questionable pundit rolled out under different job titles for different purposes to prop up the government line. At best it's lazy, at worst it's implies a lack of impartiality which casts doubt on their effectiveness.

The only place in the UK where you will find controversial news and opinion is Channel 4.

That's interesting Steve.

Channel 4 relies on advertising, as I recall. This gives the lie to the claim that media is primarily influenced by commerical interests.

Not, as I trust you understand, that I'm opposed in principle to public broadcasting. I love the idea of genuine public domain media. But when it's a fake, it's particularly dangerous.

That's my beef with the current Beeb and the ABC in Oz.

In my book, fake 'balance' that has broad credibility = very big problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John

One of the State Department intelligence estimates officials who was on the wrong side of the analysis on Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction conclusions (he could find none) died mysteriously.

I don't have his name but he perished by hurtling down the side of the State Department building, or Foggy Bottom. Suicide of course. Would have been a bit awkward to say "we pitched him out on his head" ....

Landed in a basement window well.

High Fall.

Of course his little analysis group was the only one vindicated when the WMD hunt came up empty.

Thanks for the informative and compelling post!
Not just Kelly, there are MANY mysterious deaths of scientists. Just google "dead scientists" and read, you will be mindblown.

WHAT is going on??? Last time I checked it was up to 64!!

Dawn

Oh yes the famous mysterious deaths of scientists’ nonsense. Some lists list “scientists” who were killed in Iraq or were in there 70’s or 80’s with lung or heart problems others died in passenger jet crashes. Although some died due to murder or suicide many died in what presumably were accidents or of natural causes. The lists normally don’t provide links so that the information can be easily checked. Some weren’t scientists but people who worked for science and technology companies, others had science or engineering degrees but worked in other fields, some were doctors or veterinarians, some were lab techs others computer programmers other were retired.

http://www.stevequayle.com/dead_scientists...Scientists.html

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/microb...master_list.htm

http://www.greatdreams.com/microbiologists.htm

I wrote the following (with some minor changes) for another forum:

I found data regarding death rates in the US while researching something else.

According to the CDC (1) in 2003 the last year in which they had data 79.2 men (most people on the list like most scientists are men) died of violent causes (2) per 100,000 population (pdf page 187, table 29). I don’t know how much social class affects these rates but whites, who as a whole are more affluent that other races, have virtually the same violent death rate (53.7) as the population as a whole 54.1 (see page 188). I would imagine the violent death rate for male scientists would be lower than that for the general population but the 79.2 statistic is for people of all ages, scientists are of course adults and adults have a higher death rate than the general population so these two factors would probably balance each other out.

To make a long story short we would expect the violent death rate for scientists to be about 70 - 80 per 100,000 (i.e. 0.07 %).

Inspired by that serendipitous find I did some Googling. According to the NSF (3) in 2001 there were 2,157,300 scientists and 1,256,400 engineers employed in the US for a total of 3,413,700. This doesn’t of course count retired scientists and engineers (some of the “victims” were retired) or people with science and engineering degrees employed in other professions. 0.07% of 3.413,700 is 2390. Thus we would expect over 2000 scientists and engineers to die violent deaths a year just in the US not counting retirees or people who died of natural causes lab techs.

Len

1 - http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf#027 (10 MG file not recommended for dial-up connections)

2 - Total for unintentional injuries, suicide and homicide.

3 - http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05313/pdf/tab1.pdf

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...3909&page=2 post #19

¨64 mysterious deaths? Yawn!

Len

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware the BBC has not provided information on Norman Baker's investigation. Baker is a well-respected local MP and is the ideal person to present this information (as the article points out, he has exposed other scandals).

Sid,

IMHO the BBC is now a total waste of time. Even the BEEB's hard-hitting documentary series 'Panorama' is bland and limits itself quite substantially in it's choice of subject. Occasionally, BBC2's Newsnight will kick in with something of note, but I have been particularly distrurbed recently by their reliance on a questionable pundit rolled out under different job titles for different purposes to prop up the government line. At best it's lazy, at worst it's implies a lack of impartiality which casts doubt on their effectiveness.

The only place in the UK where you will find controversial news and opinion is Channel 4.

That's interesting Steve.

Channel 4 relies on advertising, as I recall. This gives the lie to the claim that media is primarily influenced by commerical interests.

The way the system has been established, the advertisers with C4 cannot influence the content. That is why they are more likely to show anti-establishment material.

Since the David Kelly affair the BBC has been very keen not to upset the Blair government. This is because of threats made to it by the government. The problem for the BBC is that the Tories are likely to be even worse (they are threatening to privatize it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A search of Google news shows that not one newspaper in the UK has picked up this story. That is amazing.

It has just been announced that Norman Baker is to talk about his investigation on the BBC's Jeremy Vine show this afternoon. If that is the case, it might be picked up by BBC news later today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true, as John pointed out, that motive for the Kelly murder is not clear; likewise the identity of his murderers.

What CAN be shown, however, is that the Hutton Inquiry iniquitously failed to consider alternatives to suicide. The mass media went along with this charade. The Blair Government failed to step in and ensure that an honest and thorough inquiry was conducted.

In each of these three cases I don't believe "incompetence theory" is plausible. Those at the top must have decided to confine the investigation to its narrow, largely pre-determined track - just like the Warren Commission was set up assuming what happened (a lone nut assassin dunnit) and left only with the task of explaining how it happened.

Anyone followng the case closely in 2003, with access to the internet, could see huge problems with the official story. The improbability of suicide was widely knwn at that time. Yet it was deliberately overlooked by the British establishment.

As the Hutton Inquiry rolled on, aided and abetted by the media, it focused more and more on the role of the BBC in creating conditions conducive to Kelly's "suicide". The public take home message was something like this: "we need a free mass media - and clearly have a free media in Britain - but sometimes it can go to far and cause terrible personal tragedies in its fearless pursuit of the truth".

Not a bad outcome for the cryptocracy with its stranglehold over western mass media.

Anyhow, as I said before I do think what we know already about this sordid case should be sufficient basis for charges to be brought against Hutton and Blair for perverting the course of justice.

The other case that needs cracking is the 7/7 bombings. I am appalled that the British public meekly accepted Blair's refusal to hold an Inquiry of any sort into this atrocity. There must now be a growing chorus of demands for a full, fair and open inquiry. Of course, we shaln't get that with the criminals currently in power. Nevertheless, it provides more documentation about the official lies and further opportunities for exposure.

Imagine if, after the slaying of JFK, there had been no public inquiry of any kind. The task of independent researchers would now be so much more difficult.

I think 40 years ago standards in western democracies were rather higher. At that time, an attempt to hold no inquiry would have been viewed as outrageous. Two decades before that, Roosevelt had held an inquiry into the circumstances of Pearl Harbor, even during wartime. It was fraudulent, but at least it took place.

As far as I can tell, the trend towards not holding inquiries at all really got underway in the 1990s. In Australia, we had an unprecedented slaying of civilians at Port Arthur, Tasmania in the first year of the Howard Government. There was no Inquest or Inquiry. Howard personally intervened to argue the no Inquest case (to spare the grieving relatives unnecessary pain). The 'lone nut' (alleged) assassin, kept away from his mother and any other honest third party for months, finally changed his plea to guilty, so the veracity of the official story was never tested in court.

At the time, I was busy with other matters and paid little attention to events that were portrayed as humane decent and reasonable by the Aussie mass media. I assumed the alleged lone nut assassin was guilty. As in the Kelly case in Britain, any suggestion to the contrary was rare (an immediately dismissed as a 'conspiracy theory' in mainstream discourse).

I disliked Howard and his politics, but remember gaining respect for his determination, after Port Arthur, to secure more stringent gun control . Australia’s gun lobby was furious. I had no time for them at all. I've always disliked guns and weapons of all kind. Some members of the gun lobby doubted the official version of events and cried foul. I considered them right-wing whackoes, with few redeeming features, overly prone to 'conspiracy theories'.

Now I can see how Australian public opinion was grossly manipulated over Port Arthur - and how investigative and judicial due process simply went out the window.

I'm also aware that I was unable, in the 1990s, to pay attention to people who were speaking truth about the mass murder at Port Arthur, the subsequent cover-up and miscarriage of justice, because I was blinded by prejudice against them.

Had even a few “opinion leaders” in Australian society outside the sector branded as “ultra rightist” blown the whistle, my opinion at the time might have been very different. But, as I recall, no-one did. Whoever slayed the hapless victims at Port Arthur got away, literally, with murder. Mainstream Australian society was complicit in that it allowed this to happen by being fooled into abandoning long-established good practice. Howard and Groom in Australia, whatever they knew or didn’t know about the actual killings, were very active in securing the cover-up. Last but not least, an innocent man rots in jail without prospect of release, Australia’s Sirhan Sirhan.

Britain needs a broad coalition of the fair-minded, to demand justice over the Kelly death and the 7/7 bombings. Calling for completed inquests would be a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just heard the Jeremy Vine interview with Norman Baker. The evidence he presented made it clear that David Kelly had not committed suicide. Vine asked him who had a motive to kill Kelly. Baker replied that he suspected that Kelly was murdered because he had more information to reveal concerning the cover-up. The three possible organizations behind the murder were listed in the following order:

1. US intelligence agencies.

2. The UK government.

3. The UK intelligence agencies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...