Difference between revisions of "Talk:David Kelly"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
3. Nor would the Iraqis have done it to him - he'd have been back there in a few days, and they could have shot him in an alleyway with nobody lifting an eyebrow. [[User:Toolbox|Toolbox]] 20:52, 15 May 2011 (IST) | 3. Nor would the Iraqis have done it to him - he'd have been back there in a few days, and they could have shot him in an alleyway with nobody lifting an eyebrow. [[User:Toolbox|Toolbox]] 20:52, 15 May 2011 (IST) | ||
| − | : | + | :Disagree on point 1. Too many anomalies with the medical evidence + stubborn refusal to have that evidence tested to inquest standards + many other others. |
| + | |||
| + | :'Qui-bono?' usually points clearly to the major suspects but in this case less obviously so. I have always leaned towards US SIS sponsorship with two interlocking motives viz: DK's deep knowledge of bio-warfare anthrax technicalities, personalities and production methods (Finalising Bruce Ivins as the US Anthrax letters Patsie was in progress and DK was a serious potential problem on that score) and a sort of 'get back in line or else' demonstration to UK SIS's. For sure there are UK TV policemen and others who remain silent on evidence that would effectively kill the official narrative once and for all - though I doubt anyone outside the UK SIS's know the real perpetrators for sure. --[[User:Peter|Peter P]] 06:49, 16 May 2011 (IST) | ||
Revision as of 06:20, 16 May 2011
David Kelly's death wasn't murder.
1. If it had been murder, his wrists would have been well and truly slit.
2. There was no point in the UKG killing him, he had no secrets to tell, and nothing to embarrass them with.
3. Nor would the Iraqis have done it to him - he'd have been back there in a few days, and they could have shot him in an alleyway with nobody lifting an eyebrow. Toolbox 20:52, 15 May 2011 (IST)
- Disagree on point 1. Too many anomalies with the medical evidence + stubborn refusal to have that evidence tested to inquest standards + many other others.
- 'Qui-bono?' usually points clearly to the major suspects but in this case less obviously so. I have always leaned towards US SIS sponsorship with two interlocking motives viz: DK's deep knowledge of bio-warfare anthrax technicalities, personalities and production methods (Finalising Bruce Ivins as the US Anthrax letters Patsie was in progress and DK was a serious potential problem on that score) and a sort of 'get back in line or else' demonstration to UK SIS's. For sure there are UK TV policemen and others who remain silent on evidence that would effectively kill the official narrative once and for all - though I doubt anyone outside the UK SIS's know the real perpetrators for sure. --Peter P 06:49, 16 May 2011 (IST)
