Experts call for David Kelly 'suicide' inquiry

[donkey]

The official cause given for the death of David Kelly has been dismissed as 'extremely unlikely' by eight experts who are calling for a fresh inquiry into the suspicious circumstances surrounding his killing.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100813/tuk-experts-demand-inquest-into-kelly-de-dba1618.html

[LordChaverly]

My hunch is that Kelly did commit suicide, regardless of the suspicions of these experts (and the recent assertions of a Russian spy).

 

However, this does not mean that certain people are not morally culpable for his death. In particular, Alastair Campbell, Andrew Mackinlay and, directly or indirectly, Blair himself, were so hellbent on providing a justification for the invasion of Iraq, and therefore so keen to discredit his evidence that they hounded this decent and honourable man in such a way that their behaviour probably tipped him over the edge. In my view the key events were probably his appearance at the HoC Foreign Affairs Committee (attended by Campbell's attack dog, Mackinlay) and his knowledge that the BBC (in the form of Susan Watts, Newsnight's science correspondent) was about to expose him as the source of the 'sexed up dossier' allegations. Kelly also knew that, in additions to his reputation, his civil service job and pension were also in jeopardy. In short, he had made comments 'off the record' and they had become very much 'on the record', exposing him as the source, which he then denied on TV during his appearance before the Committee.

Edited August 13, 2010 by LordChaverly

[Uptowngirl]

My hunch is that Kelly did commit suicide, regardless of the suspicions of these experts (and the recent assertions of a Russian spy).

 

However, this does not mean that certain people are not morally culpable for his death. In particular, Alastair Campbell, Andrew Mackinlay and, directly or indirectly, Blair himself, were so hellbent on providing a justification for the invasion of Iraq, and therefore so keen to discredit his evidence that they hounded this decent and honourable man in such a way that their behaviour probably tipped him over the edge. In my view the key events were probably his appearance at the HoC Foreign Affairs Committee (attended by Campbell's attack dog, Mackinlay) and his knowledge that the BBC (in the form of Susan Watts, Newsnight's science correspondent) was about to expose him as the source of the 'sexed up dossier' allegations. Kelly also knew that, in additions to his reputation, his civil service job and pension were also in jeopardy. In short, he had made comments 'off the record' and they had become very much 'on the record', exposing him as the source, which he then denied on TV during his appearance before the Committee.

 

 

Of course it is possible to force someone into suicide by making threats to attack their peron, their family or their friends if they don't. I believe it was a tactic particularly popular in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

[donkey]

My hunch is that Kelly did commit suicide, regardless of the suspicions of these experts (and the recent assertions of a Russian spy).

 

However, this does not mean that certain people are not morally culpable for his death. In particular, Alastair Campbell, Andrew Mackinlay and, directly or indirectly, Blair himself, were so hellbent on providing a justification for the invasion of Iraq, and therefore so keen to discredit his evidence that they hounded this decent and honourable man in such a way that their behaviour probably tipped him over the edge. In my view the key events were probably his appearance at the HoC Foreign Affairs Committee (attended by Campbell's attack dog, Mackinlay) and his knowledge that the BBC (in the form of Susan Watts, Newsnight's science correspondent) was about to expose him as the source of the 'sexed up dossier' allegations. Kelly also knew that, in additions to his reputation, his civil service job and pension were also in jeopardy. In short, he had made comments 'off the record' and they had become very much 'on the record', exposing him as the source, which he then denied on TV during his appearance before the Committee.

 

The idea that Kelly would be so easily and quickily shamed and intimidated to the point of suiciide has never rang true to me. This was a man who was given his job, not just on the back of his scientific expertise, but because - presumably - he was immune to the type of intimidation and co-ersion which saddam's vicious security appartus must surely have tried to subject him.

Despite this, we are supposed to believe that he was so utterly unable to deal with pressure?

[s.hawkins]

The official cause given for the death of David Kelly has been dismissed as 'extremely unlikely' by eight experts who are calling for a fresh inquiry into the suspicious circumstances surrounding his killing.

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100813/tuk-experts-demand-inquest-into-kelly-de-dba1618.html

 

he should have kept his mouth shut.

[Smithster]

If David Kelly committed suicide then I'm the President of the Outer Mongolian womens cricket club. The whole story stinks from top to bottom.

 

I read a while ago that his wife claims he was writing a book or at least a journal of what had happened and his aim was to expose the cabinet's deceit. Blair is desperate to get the legal go-ahead to follow his master into Iraq so the last thing he wants is for the analyst who produced the so-called intelligence to publicly deny its accuracy.

 

Then he mysteriously commits suicide, although many doctors who have examined the autopsy report claim there is no way that the alleged weapon could have caused the wounds that killed him. Uh-uh. Sorry. Tooooo convenient.

 

British history is replete with examples of government using assassination as a means to achieve its goals. There is no good reason to believe that governments of the modern age are any less capable of such acts.

[s.hawkins]

If David Kelly committed suicide then I'm the President of the Outer Mongolian womens cricket club. The whole story stinks from top to bottom.

 

I read a while ago that his wife claims he was writing a book or at least a journal of what had happened and his aim was to expose the cabinet's deceit. Blair is desperate to get the legal go-ahead to follow his master into Iraq so the last thing he wants is for the analyst who produced the so-called intelligence to publicly deny its accuracy.

 

Then he mysteriously commits suicide, although many doctors who have examined the autopsy report claim there is no way that the alleged weapon could have caused the wounds that killed him. Uh-uh. Sorry. Tooooo convenient.

 

British history is replete with examples of government using assassination as a means to achieve its goals. There is no good reason to believe that governments of the modern age are any less capable of such acts.

 

 

 

of course the government had him killed, he should have kept quite.

[pacman123]

Whats the point History is History ya can't change it,his wife doesn't want an enquiry so why bother...

Edited August 13, 2010 by pacman123

[Smithster]

of course the government had him killed, he should have kept quite.

 

Do you really believe that? That he should have kept his mouth shut and allowed President Blair to take our armed forces into an illegal and unjust war in the knowledge that he could have prevented it?

 

On one hand he had a legal obligation to adhere to the official secrets act (I assume) but on the other hand, did he not have more of a moral obligation to speak out and prevent the UK getting involved in what was surely just a revenge for taunting daddy during Desert Storm and oil-grab operation for Bush and his neo-cons?

 

Put in his position, would you do what you were told or would you do what was right and just?

[s.hawkins]

Do you really believe that? That he should have kept his mouth shut and allowed President Blair to take our armed forces into an illegal and unjust war in the knowledge that he could have prevented it?

 

On one hand he had a legal obligation to adhere to the official secrets act (I assume) but on the other hand, did he not have more of a moral obligation to speak out and prevent the UK getting involved in what was surely just a revenge for taunting daddy during Desert Storm and oil-grab operation for Bush and his neo-cons?

 

Put in his position, would you do what you were told or would you do what was right and just?

 

the war was legal sadams iraq had it comming