Blair's Biggest Scandal ?

conspiracy!!?? what are you talking about??are you a fuckin tin foil 911 hat wearer or summit?? eh

Osama committed 911.Kelly committed suicide and 7/7 woz just like they sed it woz gottit guv!!!!and Al quaeda are gonna kill us all someday somehow somewhere wif summit,,,an air baloon filled wif old fucked up smoke detectors.

A good education is a wonderful thing. Very important when it comes to spelling. Innit?

I'd love to know the opinions of David Kelly's family on the subject of whether or not he committed suicide. Maybe they will speak out publicly one day.

The BBC is planning a doc on Kellys death? Oh, that'll get to the bottom of it - not.

How about they are doing it cos its so damn obvious that there was a massive cover-up ('conspiracy theroy' = loony it now seems) that they need to get a few new 'facts' into the public domain to undermine those that believe (or even know) Kelly was murdered.

BBC works for government, it is stuffed full of Blairites. Get real, no truth will be unearthed by the Blair propaganda unit.

you betcha guv!

only real stoopid uneducated dullards would believe that conspiracy crap.Tony Bliar never lies.Never.The sick mentally ill bastard always tells the truth.Bliar is a star Spangled Bannered rent boy.Rent boys are alright you know.Dubyas rent boy always tells the truth.Kelly topped himsel end of story.

Letters forwarded to national British newspapers

As medical professionals, a trauma & orthopaedic surgeon, a specialist anaesthesiologist, and a diagnostic radiologist, we do not think evidence given at the Hutton Inquiry has demonstrated that Dr David Kelly committed suicide.

Dr Nicholas Hunt, the forensic pathologist who appeared at the Hutton Inquiry, concluded that Dr Kelly bled to death from a self-inflicted wound in his left wrist. We consider this highly improbable. Arteries in the wrist are of matchstick thickness and severing them does not lead to drastic blood loss. Dr Hunt stated that the only artery that had been cut - the ulnar artery - was completely transected. Complete transection means the artery quickly retracts, promoting clotting of the blood:

"When an artery is completely divided, the highly elastic quality of its wall causes it to retract into the tissues, thereby diminishing the calibre of the vessel and promoting clotting."

A Textbook of Surgery by Christopher, Fourth Edition, 1945, p210

It was reported by the ambulance team that blood at the scene was minimal. It is extremely difficult to lose significant amounts of blood at pressure below 50-60 systolic in a subject who is compensating by vaso-constricting. To have died from haemorrhage, Dr Kelly would have had to lose 3 litres of blood; in our view it is unlikely that Dr Kelly would have lost more than a pint from the wound described.

Mr Alexander Allan, the toxicologist testifying at the Inquiry, considered the ingestion of co-proxamol insufficient to cause death. Mr Allan could not show that Dr Kelly had ingested the 29 tablets said to be missing from the packets found. Only a fifth of one tablet was found in his stomach. Although levels of co-proxamol in the blood were higher than therapeutic levels, Mr Allan conceded that the blood level of each of the drug's two components was less than a third of what would normally be found in a fatal overdose.

In summary, we dispute that Dr Kelly could have died either from haemorrhage or from co-proxamol ingestion. The coroner, Nicholas Gardiner, has spoken in recent days of resuming the inquest into Dr Kelly's death. If it does re-open, a clear need exists for further scrutiny into Dr Hunt's conclusions regarding the cause of death.

Yours sincerely

David Halpin, MB BS FRCS

Trauma & Orthopaedic Surgeon

Dr C Stephen Frost, BSc, MB ChB

Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology (Stockholm, Sweden)

Dr Searle Sennett, BSc, MBChB, FFARCS

Specialist Anaesthesiologist

When the BBC gets involved, you know that they'll spin it for Herr Fuhrer Blair.

here is a great site about topping yoself.Lot´s of good pratical advice.Apparenty cutting ones wrist aint that easy a way to kill ones self..

http://www.satanservice.org/coe/suicide/guide/#III.C.6

here is a great site about topping yoself.Lot´s of good pratical advice.Apparenty cutting ones wrist aint that easy a way to kill ones self.

so after having read that grisly stuff.still think Doc Kelly dunnit?

excerpt from above

Do not bother trying to cut your writs. I did that a couple of months ago, without sucsess. I thought, in my innocence, that if you only reach an artery, you're sure to be dead.

I'm also new here, but still I might be able to explain a bit: Wrong, I cut of my arteries on both wrists (spash of blood and then blood flowing out in rythm with my pulse), but your body protects itself by stopping the blood flow after a while. Did it again…and again…till I finally reached the conclusion that its a louse way to try to take your life; it does not work, and I was too weak anyway to be able to do it again. So here I am, still alive… First let me mention that I work for a rescue service in my free time… didn't try it myself but saw people who tried that kind of thing. In reality, it is pretty hard to slash your wrists and actually hit an artery. Most people just hit the vein, see a splash of blood and think they've hit the artery, and it's done. Wrong. First of all, the artery hides below the vein, which pulses also—though not as much, so you'd have to keep cutting while the blood's gushing—or slash real hard. Second, the artery has to sustain quite a high pressure, so it's somewhat more sturdy than a vein. Not too easy to cut through. By the time you'd actually get to it, you're probably out from loss of blood already. And veins, as you've experienced, have the tendency to close off. Even if they didn't, there's always a second way of the body protecting itself. It's called centralisation. When this happens, the body cuts off nearly all circulation in the arms and legs, all the better to provide the vital organs with blood.

So, cutting your wrists is definitively a bad idea. Plus, it takes quite some time for you to die, too. Chances are, you'll be rescued before there's even a life-threatening situation. And it doesn't take much to stop the flow, too, just the touch of a finger… All that'll be left is gonna be a long stretch in rehab and very likely some psychiatric treatment also… plus a really messy carpet—or wherever you plan to do it—to clean up.

People attempting suicide are often in an unbalanced state of mind and their judgement is impaired. Kelly had been under extreme stress for weeks due to Downing Street and MOD bullying. He was getting on in years and with poor health. It is not implausible that already highly stressed, he knocked back a handful of coproxamol, stabbed himself in the wrist, and despite the suicide attempt being botched, his heart gave out.

***********
"God, man, horse, dog, woman, rat, then Anonymous".

Hmmm, there seems to be lots of 'special needs' types posting today.

If there was open debate in this country, e.g. proper inquires, enquiries and reporting we would all know the truth and not have to rely on well contructed theories and arguments. The plain and simple fact is no one knows the truth because 'they' don't want it known.

This site provides a very thorough and unemotional assessment of the known facts:

http://dr-david-kelly.blogspot.com/

In my view, nobody should believe any version of events until an inquest has been conducted. A coroner has the power to subpoena witnesses under oath to establish "how, when and where the deceased came by his death," as specified in section 36 of the Coroner's Rules 1984. The scope of Hutton's report - even if it had been properly conducted - did not include this objective. Hutton does not, therefore, remove the need for an inquest.

Despite (because of?) the high-profile nature of his death Dr Kelly remains one of the very, very few citizens of this country to have died violently and been denied an inquest.

Why would that be?

It is not implausible that already highly stressed, he knocked back a handful of coproxamol, stabbed himself in the wrist, and despite the suicide attempt being botched, his heart gave out.

Then why didn't the coroner say he died of a heart attack?

Then why didn't the coroner say he died of a heart attack?

Perhaps because the coroner did not find evidence of one - a heart attack being a myocardial infarction. You don't need a blood clot to suffer heart failure.

***********
"God, man, horse, dog, woman, rat, then Anonymous".

God, man, horse, dog, woman, rat,fart then Dick Cheney".hey dick asshole,I see you class women below dogs you sick bastard.

Dick makes a fair point. The answer is to have an open and honest inquiry - something highly unfashionable in Blair's Britain and not likely to feature highly in Gordon' Brown's vision either.

Fair enquiry!!no chance of that.New Labour doesn´t do fairness.A fair inquiry will never happen.It is impossible.Everyone is bought and paid for and those who shout for fairness will be ignored.

The nature of conspiracy.

It is quite absurd that rational sceptics of "official" (ie. government) versions of events get trapped into the apologist defence over "conspiracy theory".

FACT: Governments HAVE conspired to deceive the people (and their own legislatures) on many occasions in the past. There is ample, incontrovertible evidence to confirm this (see examples below).

FACT: Bliar HAS been caught (“blood-handed”) lying. So; why would anyone believe that he (or his government) have not conspired (sic) to lie on a grand scale or conspired (sic) to defraud the population with cover-ups or even “black” operations?

FACT: Bliar has clearly demonstrated his willingness (eagerness even) to subjugate the interests of the UK to those of the USA. He has done this on numerous issues from extradition to war. This is technically treason and there would be every reason, therefore, for him to “collude with others to cover this up” – technically a conspiracy.

FACT: The overwhelming evidence that all is not as it is being told (11/9, 7/7, Kelly, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) together with the steadfast refusal (by both Bush and Bliar regimes) to accept ANY scrutiny or inquiry must lead to a conclusion that a cover-up (involving many people) is IN progress – a “conspiracy”.

Mocking the facts is the scurrilous tactic of those who seek to influence the ignorant. It works because most ARE ignorant and too bone idle to bother to read the research done by reputable scholars. Mockers are eager to encourage the weak and ignorant to remain content to blindly believe anything governments tell them.

Using the phrase "conspiracy theory" works too. It is one of those non-phases which has been deliberately vilified to hide scandal, lies and fraud. Well, let us say that the remarkable efforts of people like Edward G Griffin (“...Jekyll Island”) PROVES at least one great conspiracy. The work of Briton Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed (“War on Freedom”) presents, in a thoroughly professional and dispassionate way the enormous body of evidence surrounding the 2001 WTC attacks provides concrete evidence for another. There are many more reputable scholars who have contributed to the conspiracy FACT archives.

Today, in a world where the information IS available, “Conspiracy Denialists” reveal themselves as either supporters of a conspiracy agenda or simply bog-ignorant.

The term “conspiracy theorist” then is just a term invented by conspiracy denialists to mock the facts, belittle and intimidate those who question the "party" line.

If you believe that two or more people have colluded to do harm to you or you country then you DO have a conspiracy theory! So, it is quite irrational to become a “conspiracy theory apologist” for fear of seeming lunatic – it simply weakens every argument you subsequently make.

It is far more rational to assert “Conspiracy FACT” and to denounce those who refuse or deny the facts as “Conspiracy Denialists”.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists

1 characteristic of liars

They create diversion away from questions of substance, and attemopt to riducule the questioner. As liars here have amply shown.

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
Davide Simonetti

are you an employee of Drowning street by any chance??

All the facts that jk5 has listed are now irrelevant because Davide Simonetti has ridiculed him and labeled him as a conspiracy theorist.

God forbid Davide actually address anything that jk5 says. Oh No.

10 characteristics of conspiracy denialist
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
- paraphrased by jk5

1. Arrogance.
2. Relentlessness.
3. Inability to answer questions.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad.
7. Inability to withdraw.
8. Leaping to conclusions.
9. Using previous non-conspiracies as evidence to support their claims
10. It's never a conspiracy.

Seems the illustrious ("Aids is Gods punishment") Donna has pretty much defined a denialist too.

The sad little Welshman from Brixton ("...our lively and vibrant bulletin board" - puke) has also swallowed her/his drivel.

This nonsense is all over the web under about two dozen (that we can find) "editors" nomicae - all with the SAME "editors note".

Further investigation of "Donna Ferentes" (pretty sure this is a pseudonym) reveals a rabid pro-establishment, blogger running (usually well structured) propaganda articles on hundreds of sites. In other words a full-time propagandist.

She/it is characterised in blogs by responding to any "answer the question" challenge with "... broken record. Always asking the same question." but NEVER offering any attempt at an answer or even debate.

This type of refusal to respond to reasonable questions or to engage in any debate characterises the denialist or the spin doctor or the politician in arse-covering mode.

Back to David Kelly ... .

If two or more people have colluded to cover up the circumstances of DK's death then it IS a conspiracy. It's not a f*****g THEORY. So if it is a conspiracy then CALL IT a conspiracy.

The evidence (and obvious attempts to conceal SOME evidence) demands answers. Belly-aching about "conspiracy theorists" is a clear attempt to intimidate and undermine any investigation. It will (hopefully) only work with the weak, the gullible, the ignorant and the stupid.

At present we (jk5) have a THEORY. It is a theory that a conspiracy (ie. the act of two or more people conspiring to pervert justice) has taken place concerning the death of David Kelly. We are, therefore, conspiracy theorists on this issue. We reject and condemn the derogatory connotations that have been applied to the term ("conspiracy theorist") by those who seek to pervert justice and deceive the public.

The term 'conspiracy theory' is a misnomer. Instead, what people are reading into the death of David Kelly is unsupported conjecture. A theory is a hypothesis that has survived rigorous testing; a hypothesis explains available evidence and makes testable predictions. This conjecture about David Kelly does not even reach the standard of hypothesis - it is the warped result of confirmation bias.

***********
"God, man, horse, dog, woman, rat, then Anonymous".

"This conjecture about David Kelly does not even reach the standard of hypothesis" - That’s interesting Dick. I'm all ears. Explain to me how the testimony of the medical professionals is wrong/irrelevant as is that of the toxicologists and his family. Show me that reports of the moved body, his invisible blood, his overly leaky veins, the unidentified persons on the crime scene are deliberate lies to accuse sweet and righteous Tony. Don’t pull punches mate, name those names and I will enquire with my friends about avenues for liable action to be levied upon those conspiracy hoaxers who make up this nasty accusations.

Tip: Ask Davide to help you. He obviously knows a lot about the failings of these evil conspiracy theorists.

In case you somehow don’t ever visit this thread again, don't worry, I'll can remind you of this section.

The floor is yours. Over to you Dickey :)

Dick, re your hypothetical heart failure, does it pass the rigorous standards you apply to others?

That there are inconsistencies in the evidence does not mean that assassination has taken place. Witnesses always have imperfect recollection.

I am not proposing that he was or was not murdered, merely that it is not possible to tell based on the available information. Some people have jumped to the conclusion that he was murdered and then prop this idea up with selective and distorted evidence.

It seems quite plausible that high died of coronary arrest brought on by a combination of existing disease, extreme stress and coproxamol.

My feeling is that the thuggish Alasdair Campbell and the MOD bullied a decent man to death, and the government fought tooth and claw to cover this up. Maybe he was murdered, who knows?

***********
"God, man, horse, dog, woman, rat, then Anonymous".

Still waiting Dick...

Dick. You haven’t addressed the issues. I can't say that I'm surprized. I more than half-suspected it. You have said people jump to conclusions. Yet without even the sniff of a right ventricle you pull "a coronary" out of thin air. There is a word for that you know. But all that aside, come on, I'll wait a bit longer for your commentary on what you call "inconsistencies".

Prognosis: Coronary arrest. Likely to occur with people who expose government lies and spin.
Diagnosis: Eyewitnesses that reveal no suicidal thoughts. Veins that yield copious quantities of blood. Blood is invisible to the human eye. Coproxamol shows unheard of toxicity. Unknown Individuals appear and vanish from the scene. Government continually lies about information which patient brings to the publics attention. Patient's body has a tendency to move about by its own accord without the patients will.
Treatment: Allow government to lie and spin without question. Many more years of longevity may result.

I have addressed the issues, namely that their are inconsistencies in witness statements and that it is plausible that Kelly died of coronary arrest.

Where is the evidence that he was murdered?

***********
"God, man, horse, dog, woman, rat, then Anonymous".

Ha ha ha. I appreciate the jape in coming up with the Tony Blair Q&A session impression. Nice one. I appreciate the humor. "You've addressed the issues" He he he. I'll remember that one. It was good. No, seriously it was.

So, titters aside, and stitches left to recover, lets examine your theory of a coronary arrest. What part of the coroners report did you get that proposal from?

where is the evidence God exists Dicky boy?.

Circumstantial evidence is used in criminal courts to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning.

The distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence is important because, with the obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or mentally ill), nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly," the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence. The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.

An example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone were charged with theft of money, and were then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be regarded as circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. In practice, circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence in that it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

Much of the evidence against Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence". [1] The recent Scott Peterson trial was based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is also used in civil courts to establish or deny liability.

However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his/her innocence, the 'benefit of the doubt' principle would apply.

Anonymous 06:03

1 characteristic of liars

They create diversion away from questions of substance, and attempt to ridicule the questioner. As liars here have amply shown.

What are the lies I'm supposed to have told?

Anonymous 07:28

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
Davide Simonetti

are you an employee of Drowning street by any chance??

*LOL*... Er, no.

Anonymous 07:45

All the facts that jk5 has listed are now irrelevant because Davide Simonetti has ridiculed him and labeled him as a conspiracy theorist.

God forbid Davide actually address anything that jk5 says. Oh No.

I ridiculed no one, I merely posted a link to an amusing piece on conspiracy theorists after JK5's illuminating lecture on the nature of conspiracy without any other comment; no statements of "FACTS", no assertions, no accusations, those things were all done by others. I didn't even claim that the article was some kind of profound truth. If commenters choose to throw their dollies out of the pram over it, that's their business. I must say though that subsequent comments do seem to make Donna Ferentes' case. For example Anonymous 07:45 asking if I was an employee of Downing Street *LOL again*. That's characteristic 1 incidentally, sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc..

As for my not addressing anything that JK5 says, what's the point? JK5 already knows all the answers and seems to have complete certainty. I make no such claim. From the sources I've read, I suspect Dr Kelly may have been murdered, I certainly don't know this for a FACT and have never made such assertions. (Oh, I have asserted on another posts that the Hutton inquiry was a whitewash, but I think we can all agree on that.) A proper inquest and an inquiry with a wider remit would help. Is that the point I'm supposed to address or am I supposed to agree with A is true, therefore B must be true? I don't!

I usually have little patience with the conspiraloons who bang on about the various 9/11 and 7/7 conspiracy theories, even though occasionally there is some merit to aspects of what they are saying.

Davide Simonetti
did you utter the above???did you or did you not you cheeky chap??
I ridiculed no one, I merely posted a link to an amusing piece on conspiracy

come on now me ol sun,,,what´s it to be then matey??cake and eat it and all that

Listen to yourselves. What a load of cobblers. Spooks is a TV programme, not reality. Self-selecting evidence, or the lack of it, to 'prove' this ridiculous theory is a waste of bandwidth. Three points:

1. Why murder him? The risks: being found out, pulling the whole government (police, judiciary, etc.) down with you, and being put away for life. The advantages: errr...he'd already spoken to Gilligan, and his knowledge was not unique to him within Whitehall. Not much of a choice.

2. Why kill yourself? You're a well-respected, honourable civil servant who made a mistake and whose career is seriously unravelling in front of you.

3. If you can cover up something like this, why can't you plant some WMD in the enormity of Iraq, have it 'discovered' and justify the invasion at a stroke? Why not? Because, much as it will pain you to hear, life just isn't like that.

I'm sure Blair has skeletons in his closet, but this isn't one of them.

I certainly did... and your point is? My comment is qualified with the remark that occasionally there is some merit to the argument. That doesn't mean I have to buy into every theory spinning around on the net and religiously believe the plethora of 9/11 videos all claiming to have "the truth". After a while, I'm afraid I find them tedious. I'm still not claiming to know for sure what happened. I'll leave that for others. Ok?

Listen to yourselves. What a load of cobblers. Spooks is a TV programme, not reality. Self-selecting evidence, or the lack of it, to 'prove' this ridiculous theory is a waste of bandwidth. Three points:

You're quite right, spooks is a tv programme, don't know why you brought this undeniable fact to the discussion though, there's no controversy about that.
What is self selecting evidence, by the way? Do you mean a selective approach, ie selecting reported facts that would merit further explanation? That sounds ok to me.
And what should we use our precious bandwidth for?

1. Why murder him? The risks: being found out, pulling the whole government (police, judiciary, etc.) down with you, and being put away for life. The advantages: errr...he'd already spoken to Gilligan, and his knowledge was not unique to him within Whitehall. Not much of a choice.

I don't know, was he murdered or not, his suicide is not proven, as there was no proven mechanism to effect it.

2. Why kill yourself? You're a well-respected, honourable civil servant who made a mistake and whose career is seriously unravelling in front of you.

Yes, you're in the shit, but why kill yourself, and if you actually do why leave no note for your loving family? Maybe it was an impulse suicide.

3. If you can cover up something like this, why can't you plant some WMD in the enormity of Iraq, have it 'discovered' and justify the invasion at a stroke? Why not? Because, much as it will pain you to hear, life just isn't like that.

This is a bit of a jump, but I'll try.
Bumping off an old geezer in deserted woods on his regular walk is considerably easier than fabricating evidence of WMD.

First you'd have to fake the weapons, fake the manufacturing facility, place these elements somewhere no one had looked before, have it discovered by weapons inspectors, who if they were like kelly or scott ritter, might have an inconveniently rigorous approach to their provenance. You might not be able to fake it well enough to deceive the trained eye.

WMD was the causus belli, if you've got your invasion, why go to the bother of faking evidence that would actually draw attention to your mendacity. Its one thing knocking up a few incriminating documents about g. galloway for the telegraph to find. Faking a WMD programme is a lot of ball ache. Better to shrug it off and 'move on'

I'm sure Blair has skeletons in his closet, but this isn't one of them.

On what evidence do you base your certainty?

Your intemperate response to people's quite legitimate curiosity would shame one of those cartoon conspiracy theorists that people revile so much.

"JK5 already knows all the answers and seems to have complete certainty" -

That's the point really.

What we did was simply ask the question "Have two or more people colluded to conceal or pervert evidence in the DK case?". If so then a conspiracy exists. At NO point did we say we KNEW the answers. We DID say that inconsistencies in the published evidence bear further scrutiny and investigation.

However conspiracy denialists always seem to use the same tactic. Anyone who even QUESTIONS the establishment story is labelled a "conspiracy theorist" in an attempt to discredit any form of scrutiny.

To be lectured on either the Scientific Method or on the Rules of Evidence (our group includes two scientists and a former barrister) is an irony.

We certainly agree "A proper inquest and an inquiry with a wider remit would help".

Our disagreement appears to reside in the use of the terms "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theorist" specifically.

Davide. JK5 posted FACTS about the case. These facts were covered up. These facts therefore indicate a conspiracy, as JK5 marvellously shows us with his (13/11/2006 - 09:49.) 4th fact, and his last paragraph.

The very next post is yours which links to a site ridiculing what are called 'conspiracy theorists', which contain some description of what JK5 has just done. In your post, there is a complete lack of a detachments from JK5's post showing you were linking the 'conspiracy theory traits' to JK5. Lets take a quick poll. Who here believes that Davide was having a go at JK5?

You then try and worm your way out of it, thinking that because you didn't specifically say "I am now going to ridicule JK5" that your can hide in any possible and deliberately attempted vagueness present in your post. Your busted pal!

You then have another dig at JK5 when you say "JK5 already knows all the answers" Yet he does not propose any such thing". It seems You like sneaky digs at people don’t you? Perhps it makes you feel superior in some way?

You make another false connection saying of the questioner who asked you if "you were an employee of Downing street". He does not say you are a sheep. There are plausable alternative is that you are fully conscious of what you are doing, and you are, or just plain dumb (or both).

You then say "As for my not addressing anything that JK5 says, what's the point?" is very nice. It demonstrates yet again your unwillingness to debate the issues at hand, even the FACTS! You don’t even offer jk5 the possibility to explore the debate which may or may not contain inaccuracies or which after discussion could be improved.

You totally avoid any discussion. Why? Characteristics of denialists?

You and Dick share similar, frankly ignorant, methodology.

Now, lets discuss the aspects of the case that lead you to suspect Kelly was murdered. Please also qualify how you can explain away the falsities in the accounts, which only make you suspect he was murdered. Explain how you are convinced that the medical evidence does NOT PROVE A CONSPIRACY. Please tell me how the testimony of MEDICAL EXPERTS which state to a degree that would be more than accepted in a court of Law, that what was reported of Kelly's condition is hugely unlikely to have killed.

You also contradict yourself. If Hutton was a whitewash as you specifically say, then there is a deliberate attempt to cover up events of the death of Kelly. That in itself is a conspiracy. You then have the cheek to say you kill leave it up to other people, yet you DON'T leave it up to other people because you start ridiculing them. but it seems like your fear of what others may think of you, i.e. that you are a 'conspiracy theorist' (which now thanks to people like yourself, contains the baggage of ridicule) means you must not get "sucked in". That fence that Dick's sitting on must be near destruction by now.

P.S. Dick.... Still waiting... Don’t forget...

Despite the protests of the victims' families as well as many scientists and engineers, Rudy Giuliani's administration worked hand in hand ... Alle » with the Bush Administration to immediately ship the 200 tons of twisted, melted, demolished World Trade Center steel off to India and China to be recycled as scrap before anyone had a chance to do a forensic examination of it. This is not what normally happens to evidence in a crime scene, and is a clear indication of the Guiliani Administration and the Bush Administration's involvement in the crimes of 9/11.

What about this for another Blair crime. On 9th Novemeber, Alain Kimolo Kikeni, a Congolese Asylum Seeker, was sent to Kinshasa by Blair's Government. Escorted by four 'escorts' he was handed over at the airport there to Congolese secret police and then taken to the notorious Kin Maziere prison from which he has now been moved to another secret destination. Does Blair want to know? Will the Home Office and Foreign Office do anything to see that Alain receives his Hunman Rights? He didn't receive them here in the UK..What hope they will do anything except wash their bloodstained hands of him.