Dr Kelly Death: Legal Move For New Inquest

Dannyboy83

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Dr-David-Kelly-Legal-Action-To-Prove-Weapons-Expert-Was-Murdered/Article/200912115492260?f=rss
Dr Kelly Death: Legal Move For New Inquest


4:29pm UK, Saturday December 05, 2009
Alex Watts, Sky News Online
Six doctors have launched a legal action to demand that the inquest into weapons expert David Kelly's death is reopened.

Dr Kelly Death: Legal Move For New Inquest


4:29pm UK, Saturday December 05, 2009
Alex Watts, Sky News Online
Six doctors have launched a legal action to demand that the inquest into weapons expert David Kelly's death is reopened.


They say there is not enough evidence to prove he committed suicide and are publishing a hard-hitting report which they claim proves the Government scientist did not kill himself as the Hutton Report decided.
Lord Hutton concluded he bled to death as a result of a cut to his wrist and an overdose of painkillers.
But Michael Powers QC, an expert in coroners' law, said the cut would not have caused him to bleed to death, and there was only a normal dose of co-proxamol in his body.
He said that for a coroner to reach a verdict of suicide there must be evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" that they intended to kill themselves.
Dr Powers added: "Suicide cannot be presumed, it has to be proven.
"From the evidence that we have as to the circumstances of his death, in particular the aspect of haemorrhage, we do not believe that there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he killed himself."
He said there was not enough information to determine whether Dr Kelly was murdered or killed himself.

Any doctor, any medical student will tell you that if you want to kill yourself by haemorrhage that is not the way to do it. Kelly was not silly.

Michael Powers QC

Dr Kelly was found dead at a beauty spot near his Oxfordshire home in 2003 after he was exposed as the source of a story that Tony Blair's Government "sexed-up" its dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to justify invading Iraq.
In one final phone conversation, he told a caller he would not be surprised "if my body was found in the woods".
There was a rush to get an answer as to what had happened and the inquest should not have been left to Lord Hutton, who is not a coroner, Dr Powers said.
The other five experts involved are trauma surgeon David Halpin, epidemiologist Andrew Rouse, surgeon Martin Birnstingl, radiologist Stephen Frost, and Chris Burns-Cox who specialises in internal general medicine.
They have instructed solicitors Leigh Day and Co, who are to approach the Attorney General Baroness Scotland to try to get the matter considered by the High Court.
Dr Kelly had some signs of heart disease which was not bad enough to have killed him, and it was never made public how much blood he had actually lost, Dr Powers said.
Although there was very little co-proxamol in his body, three packets of ten were found nearby with just one pill left.
An ulnar artery in Dr Kelly's left wrist had been cut, but this would not have caused him to bleed to death, Dr Powers said.
"Any doctor, any medical student will tell you that if you want to kill yourself by haemorrhage that is not the way to do it. Kelly was not silly," he added.
The inquest was suspended before it could begin by the then Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer, who used the Coroners Act to designate the Hutton Inquiry as "fulfilling the function of an inquest".

Assuming Blair or members of his government were found guilty in this case, would charges would Blair face?


Since Brown is serving in his place, in the government which Blair led to successful election, what would be the repercussions for Brown's government, if any?

sceptre

I'm not sure how you think either Blair or members of his government might be found guilty by a medical inquest of any sort, let alone this one specifically. You're stretching the assumption rather too much. Even if Tony Blair walked in himself with a gun and shot him five times in the head, it would require a criminal trial rather than a medical inquest to find him guilty. And your assumption assumes that the result of the asked-for inquest would find that it wasn't suicide and then that whatever happened was ordered by Blair or a member of his government. Crossing that many bridges at once is a case for the conspiracy theories forum.

Dannyboy83

Ooops, apologies, I assumed the article that it was a legal inquest as opposed to a medical inquest, i.e. if it was determined his death was not a suicide, then considering the circumstantial evidence, Blair & co would be under investigation.

Lets just cover this up, shall we?;)

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Assuming Blair or members of his government were found guilty in this case, would charges would Blair face?


Since Brown is serving in his place, in the government which Blair led to successful election, what would be the repercussions for Brown's government, if any?

sceptre wrote:

I'm not sure how you think either Blair or members of his government might be found guilty by a medical inquest of any sort, let alone this one specifically. You're stretching the assumption rather too much. Even if Tony Blair walked in himself with a gun and shot him five times in the head, it would require a criminal trial rather than a medical inquest to find him guilty. And your assumption assumes that the result of the asked-for inquest would find that it wasn't suicide and then that whatever happened was ordered by Blair or a member of his government. Crossing that many bridges at once is a case for the conspiracy theories forum.

To be fair is this not a hypothetical discussion? I maybe seeing the simplistic here...

sceptre

Even as a hypothetical discussion, it doesn't have any particular ramifications for the either the previous or current PM, regardless of what kind of inquest it would be (essentially, an inquest is an inquest, they're all run by the coroner - it's distinct from a criminal investigation, which is run by the coppers). Comments above stand - it's dependent on too many successive assumptions with an initial quicksand foundation to be credible here right now.

If people want to have a hypothetical discussion, sure, but it doesn't belong in this forum, though it's perfect for CT (it's six doctors waving their arms in the air at the moment and the ramifications are pureblood CT). I don't have a problem moving this there if you'd like one.

Traumadoc

Would not be the first inquiry that Hutton was involved in and had to be held again. cf Bloody Sunday Inquiry.

Flamed Diving

I always had a funny feeling about that one. I have a buddy who is in The Met and he said it is very, very dodgy.

So there. Proof.

Liam Byrne

sceptre wrote: »

If people want to have a hypothetical discussion, sure, but it doesn't belong in this forum, though it's perfect for CT (it's six doctors waving their arms in the air at the moment and the ramifications are pureblood CT). I don't have a problem moving this there if you'd like one.

That's all very well - to say that the facts don't support anything other than a CT or conjecture.

But considering that the topic that Kelly was highlighting was that people saw fit to base a war on zero proof/CT/conjecture, it's an ample candidate for a line in an Alanis Morrisette song!

We'll make up stories about WMDs start a war with zero proof, but that's politics.
We'll [maybe] make up stories about the circumstances of an individual death, but without proof it must be a CT.

Where and why are they so different ?

Fratton Fred

It is MI5/6 that are under the spotlight. they provided the dossier on WMDs that was sexed up, they provided the government with the information, so if Dr Kelly's death was not suicide, I would imagine Military Intelligence would have ordered it not the PM.

Dannyboy83

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It is MI5/6 that are under the spotlight. they provided the dossier on WMDs that was sexed up, they provided the government with the information, so if Dr Kelly's death was not suicide, I would imagine Military Intelligence would have ordered it not the PM.

Could you confirm if there was a separate inquest into his death?

Or was the inquest held as part of the Hutton report?

Mr.Micro

I doubt the real truth will ever come out about Dr. Kelly. The current inquiry into going to war against Iraq promises much but will deliver little in the end IMO. Hans Blix the former UN weapons inspector put it succinctly recently when he said Bush and Blair were like 2 witch finders re Sadam Hussein and neither would listen to reason or common logic in their aim to oust the latter. Poor Dr. Kelly was just a pawn in the way of that aim.

LostinBlanch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I always had a funny feeling about that one. I have a buddy who is in The Met and he said it is very, very dodgy.

So there. Proof.

Well I remember reading about the statement of the two paramedics who took his body from the scene and they thought that it was very dodgy. They said that there was only a tiny amount of blood and not as much as you would normally expect when someone someone slit their wrists. So as far as they are concerned he did not die from the slit in his wrist as the Hutton inquiry concluded.

Flamed Diving

LostinBlanch wrote: »

Well I remember reading about the statement of the two paramedics who took his body from the scene and they thought that it was very dodgy. They said that there was only a tiny amount of blood and not as much as you would normally expect when someone someone slit their wrists. So as far as they are concerned he did not die from the slit in his wrist as the Hutton inquiry concluded.

Apparently his left wrist was cut, despite him being left-handed. Of course this doesn't prove anything, but it is a bit odd.

onq

Papa Smut wrote: »

To be fair is this not a hypothetical discussion? I maybe seeing the simplistic here...

I see nothing hypothetical about whitewashing a murder of a man who brought an inconvenient truth to the attention of the public to the great embarrassment of a warmongering prime minister.

Simplistic doesn't even scratch the wrist.

ONQ.

passive

So... In response to your offer, Sceptre, I believe the above posters have all agreed that yes, thank you, the CT forum is the best place for this thread. :rolleyes:

Mahatma coat

Nothing will happen at this time, the guilty parties still hold a lot of power in the UK so they will block and obfuscate procedings for the next 5 to ten years until anyone remotley involved is retired or Disapeared.

The Dogs in teh street know Kelly was murdered, and Why, the by who is the only piece left and thats gonna take up to ten more years to come out.


Just remember, how long did it take to get a second enquiry into Bloody Sunday?

nacho libre

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Nothing will happen at this time, the guilty parties still hold a lot of power in the UK so they will block and obfuscate procedings for the next 5 to ten years until anyone remotley involved is retired or Disapeared.

The Dogs in teh street know Kelly was murdered, and Why, the by who is the only piece left and thats gonna take up to ten more years to come out.


Just remember, how long did it take to get a second enquiry into Bloody Sunday?

if the official narrative is a lie, then the killers must have gone to their superior with a red face. Surely, there would have been a intelligence file on this man? What i mean is you would think an intelligence organisation would be able to kill someone without making such glaring mistakes. i suppose to those who don't want to believe that Kelly was murdered, and that assassinations are carried out by security services, may point to the fact that if security services routinely bumped people off they'd be proficient at it. Hence if Dr Kelly was murdered there would be no loose ends.

Flamed Diving

nacho libre wrote: »

if the official narrative is a lie, then the killers must have gone to their superior with a red face. Surely, there would have been a intelligence file on this man? What i mean is you would think an intelligence organisation would be able to kill someone without making such glaring mistakes. i suppose to those who don't want to believe that Kelly was murdered, and that assassinations are carried out by security services, may point to the fact that if security services routinely bumped people off they'd be proficient at it. Hence if Dr Kelly was murdered there would be no loose ends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven

onq

nacho libre wrote: »

if the official narrative is a lie, then the killers must have gone to their superior with a red face. Surely, there would have been a intelligence file on this man? What i mean is you would think an intelligence organisation would be able to kill someone without making such glaring mistakes. i suppose to those who don't want to believe that Kelly was murdered, and that assassinations are carried out by security services, may point to the fact that if security services routinely bumped people off they'd be proficient at it. Hence if Dr Kelly was murdered there would be no loose ends.

When removing an obstruction murder leaves no trace.
When sending a message to others, a trace is necessary.

ONQ.

Fratton Fred

Flamed Diving wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven

WTF has that got to do with anything?

onq wrote: »

When removing an obstruction murder leaves no trace.
When sending a message to others, a trace is necessary.

ONQ.

how come we suddenly have a whole load of MI6 experts on boards?

Flamed Diving

Fratton Fred wrote: »

WTF has that got to do with anything?

What happens when the state tries to set someone up. They are not perfect, make mistakes and can/do get exposed. I thought it would be blatantly obvious.

nacho libre

Flamed Diving wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven

i don't see the relevance. there is no suggestion that the guildford four bombing was conducted by british intelligence- unless you believe, that like the littlejohns, the Balcombe gang were being run by british intelligence?

or is your point that humans are infallible- that those whose remit is to be adept at clandestine operations sometimes bungle and incriminate themselves?

Flamed Diving

nacho libre wrote: »

i don't see the relevant. there is no suggestion that the guildford four bombing was conducted by british intelligence- unless you believe, that like the littlejohns, the Balcombe gang were being run by british intelligence?

or is your point that humans are infallible- that those whose remit is to be adept at clandestine operations sometimes bungle and incriminate themselves?

Latter.

onq

Fratton Fred wrote: »

WTF has that got to do with anything?

Cluelessness doesn't become you

how come we suddenly have a whole load of MI6 experts on boards?

We've always been here... watching... waiting... precioussss...

<slithers off>

ONQ.

Fratton Fred

i think there is a massive leap between a police force under pressure to get a result fitting someone up for a crime and MI6 knocking off someone who is about to spill the beans.

Maybe CT is the best place for this.

Flamed Diving

I don't think this is a CT thread, tbh. You would want to pop over there and see the total nonsense they talk, then come back and read this.

onq

Fratton Fred wrote: »

i think there is a massive leap between a police force under pressure to get a result fitting someone up for a crime and MI6 knocking off someone who is about to spill the beans.

Maybe CT is the best place for this.

There is no leaping being done here, either between the two different instances that you mention above or at any conclusions other than fair and reasonable comment, all of which is on topic for this thread and forum.

A police force under pressure to get a result would end up executing a Brazilian electrician without due process or positive identification in a tube station with seven shots to the head - a disgraceful act for which no-one has served time.

Dr. Kelly had already managed to "spill the beans" and so your comment doesn't apply.

He was murdered after the fact in an obvious way in order to send a message to other members of the scientific community to stay quiet on the subject of Iraq's lack of Nuclear Weapons.

ONQ.

nacho libre

onq wrote: »

There is no leaping being done here, either between the two different instances that you mention above or at any conclusions other than fair and reasonable comment, all of which is on topic for this thread and forum.

A police force under pressure to get a result would end up executing a Brazilian electrician without due process or positive identification in a tube station with seven shots to the head - a disgraceful act for which no-one has served time.

Dr. Kelly had already managed to "spill the beans" and so your comment doesn't apply.

He was murdered after the fact in an obvious way in order to send a message to other members of the scientific community to stay quiet on the subject of Iraq's lack of Nuclear Weapons.

ONQ.

Careful. It sounds like you know too much already. Someone may deem it necessary to silence you.

Rebelheart

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Assuming Blair or members of his government were found guilty in this case, would charges would Blair face?


Since Brown is serving in his place, in the government which Blair led to successful election, what would be the repercussions for Brown's government, if any?

Em, what country is this? Try Guardian/Talk.

onq

nacho libre wrote: »

Careful. It sounds like you know too much already. Someone may deem it necessary to silence you.

The powers that be couldn't care less.
They're only worried about massive public opinion.
They know the bleatings of lone sheep are irrelevant to their games.

ONQ.

Mahatma coat

its the 'clever' jokes and off hand dismissal of any notion of a CT that these people rely on.

Man 1 'Governments are killing people for telling the truth:eek:!!!!'
Man 2 'Seriously dude you've been watchin to many X-Files'
Man 1 'But its Fvckin Obvious if you look at it objectivley!!!!!!!!!!!!!'
Man 2 'shush Gladiators is about to start'
Man 1 ':mad::mad::mad::(