What do you skeptics think about this one?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10993077
It's certainly possible that the British Govt bumped him off. It's a broadly plausible conspiracy theory, unlike stuff about shape-changing reptiloids.
There's alleged to be some evidence (lack of blood, used wrong hand, etc), but nothing conclusive, assuming it is actually correct anyway.
I'm not convinced that the motive is there. Are "they" better off with him dead?
I'd say I'm still open to the possibility of this one being true, but doubt it based on what I've read so far.
Killing a critic *after* they've made their criticisms of the government wouldn't seem to be a particularly smart move.
Killing someone after they'd publicly stated that they either weren't the main source for a big story, or that if they were, the journalist had been seriously misrepresenting what they'd said would seem to make even less sense.
If it walks like a duck...Originally Posted by Croydon Bob
Powers below is definitely wrong on one point - one can catheterise through the ulnar aretery - it is big enough in most people. How much you bleed from an artery is more dependent on the nature of the cut than the artery size - longitudional or ragged cuts are the least likely to stop bleeding, transverse cuts more likely to stop due to spasm. Without this piece of information it is perverse to comment on the likely consequences of injury to the ulnar artery.
In the end of the day probability is all you end up with - many injuries to the ulnar artery would probably lead to death, some would be unlikely to do so, but in the absence of other more probable explanations - it still remains the most likely explanation.
As for the wrong hand argument - information from a 'close friend' on his competence with a carving knife is not really evidence.
In this powerfully argued article, doctor and barrister Dr Michael Powers QC explains why justice demands an inquest is held
Playing devils advocate...
But suppose he knew more? Perhaps there was some bigger darker secret that he had been in on. He was becoming unreliable and they couldn't trust him to keep quiet about the really scarey stuff.
It's not conclusive evidence. It would help to know if other people close to Dr Kelly agree or disagree (although the true conspiracy theorist will claim that they have been "got at" if they disagree).
We know that governments kill people. We know that the British secret services are not whiter than white. It still remains possible that Kelly was bumped off by persons unknown to help the interests of some faction of our Government.
I heard it was the military wing of the Liberal Democrats that did it.
Fat bloke down the pub said so, so it must be true.
Now that is real evidence. Let's set up a website and a petition demanding that the truth is revealed.
Call that a conspiracy theory.?You're all simply lapping up the "fact" that Kelly is dead. And why just because there was a corpse, a post mortem and an enquiry by a senior Judge. Do you guys just believe anything the government tells you? Where's your skepticism?
There was no Dr Kelly...
skb
The REAL Dr Kelly is still alive.
Hiding.
From 'them'!
Just can't stay away for long. UK Skeptics sucking me back!
O.K. recall that Jack of Kent had a bug about the Kelly case some time back but never elucidated his concerns in any detail. Not sure if he has blogged about it since?
Anyway, in the absence of new compelling evidence, and in the presence of media distortion, it is very difficult to make any sort of clear judgement here.
If there was indeed a conspiracy, and Kelly was murdered, then there would have to be a few people involved. The odds that you can keep all those involved in a conspiracy for long are slender.
His family have never, to the best of my knowledge, made any suggestion that they were suspicious.
Is it established fact that he had been having a relationship of some sort with a woman in the U.S., and that he was involved with B'nai Brith (?), a slightly odd religious set up over there?
Well, it is certainly possible that Campbell and or others would have been more than willing to threaten to expose him to his family. Certainly, in someone whose mental state due to the pressures of work, and possibly adultering at the same time, the risk of suicide must be higher than the idea that we have a secret assassination on our hands.
I also keep wondering why conspiracy theorists think that such operations seem to be consistently bungled in such a way as to leave possibly damaging evidence behind. Having met a couple of spooks in my time, they have always struck me as extremely bright people, unlikely to make such elemental cock ups.
Without too much thought, one can envisage a scenario where any identification of the cause of death would have been much harder to establish (hence little doubt would be cast on the suicide verdict) e.g. a swift push off a high cliff? It's a bit like the Diana scenario. They could just have easily blown up the boat and sunk it with very little trace of what went on. Instead, the secret service apparently set up an accident in which there was no guarantee that the passengers of the car would die (seatbelts would probably have saved them!) I know that incompetence can never be ruled out, but every time there is a 'real conspiracy'?
Ah, but you see, if they're unlikely to make cock-ups, the existence of alleged cock-ups just goes to prove how many more things must be happening that you don't suspect.
The bigger and more complicated a conspiracy, the more the conspiracy nuts like it, and so the more people being bumped off skillfully or incompetently, the better.
In any case, one fairly defining characteristic of a conspiracy nut is how much smarter than average they're keen to tell everyone they are (an attribute typically *not* found in people who actually are much brighter than average).
Even if people in the security services are smart, they're clearly no match for the self-styled genius of the conspiracy nut, and the fact that most other people don't agree with the nut just goes to show how much dumber most other people are.
That is also my understanding.
As all we have is hearsay and circumstantial then this particular bit of weak evidence does suggest that there is no reason to suspect a conspiracy.
Hmm... there are lots of ways to dig oneself into a hole by commenting on that.
Tut tut, did you not know that a slightly tipsy chauffeur is guaranteed to crash killing all his passengers?
skb
No I didn't know that. Very useful info. Thanks. I'll make sure my chauffeur is stone cold sober in future!! Suggest you all do the same with yours!
Actually had never seen that M and W sketch. Usual excellent stereotyping of the issues, and hitting the nail on the head. Almost every line is telling.
Since I avoided reading almost all Diana coverage at the time and subsequently, I worked out the missing link of the seatbelts all on my own when arguing the issue with a particularly bs vulnerable person. Genius eh! Or just the application of a teeny weeny bit of common sense (the only teeny weeny bit I've got mind you!).
Kelly may have been driven to suicide, and Campbell going round asking sympathy for his own 'mental health' issues is a bit rich if that is the case, but murdered....? I've sliced it with my Occams marvellous patented high speed supersharp razor, and... well still the least likely/credible option.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks