British Government releases documents about David Kelly's

[malaise]

death.

Surprise surprise

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11603539
<snip>
Previously secret evidence about the death of Iraq weapons expert Dr David Kelly suggests that he died as a result of a "self-inflicted injury".

Two doctors who cast doubt on the case have come to opposing conclusions about whether their questions are answered.

Professor Julian Bion told BBC Radio 5 Live the newly published report "certainly satisfied" him that the cause of death given was the correct one. But former coroner Dr Michael Powers said many issues had still not been addressed.

-------------

BS!!

[Peace Patriot]

1. I find this BBC article utterly unconvincing, and I find it appalling that the once-courageous BBC

now seems to be PUSHING the B.S. about suicide, not just reporting, but PUSHING that government viewpoint.

Look a this headline, and sub-headline:

"Kelly wounds 'self-inflicted', says pathology report
Previously secret evidence about the death of Iraq weapons expert Dr David Kelly suggests that he died as a result of a "self-inflicted injury". --BBC

Now read the article. They are reporting the ORIGINAL pathology report as if it that were "news" and they are trying to make you believe that it is not a bunch of crap.

That original pathology report is a joke--which is probably why they kept it secret. It answers nothing NOW, as it answered nothing THEN. It tries to cluster phony answers to irrelevant questions around the unconvincing evidence that a non-lethal dose of co-proxamol and the wrist cut could have killed him (let alone are proof of suicide).

For instance, it cites the lack of signs of a struggle where his body was found. This DOES NOT ANSWER the scenario of moved body, arranged scene, death elsewhere. This is the same old report. And it furthermore DOES NOT ANSWER this question: Why would a TOP BIO-CHEMIST take a non-lethal dose of co-proxamol, slit a non-lethal artery and EXPECT TO DIE?

And it gets worse. There is this question, not yet asked by anybody (that I know of): Where was the surveillance team, for the most notorious whistleblower in England's history--the man hunted for weeks by the government because he had questioned the Iraq "Dodgy Dossier"; the man whose name the BBC refused to disclose--while this man bled to death all night, outdoors under a tree, near his home?

We're supposed to believe he was not being watched? They had just released him from a "safe house" where he had been interrogated and threatened with the "Official Secrets Act." He had just given an obviously distressed and coerced performance before a Parliamentary defense committee. They had released his name to the press and sent him home without protection, and apparently without surveillance, which is NOT believable. WHERE WERE HIS WATCHERS? One anonymous phone call would have saved his life, if this LYING pathology report is true.

The fight that ensued between the Blairites and the BBC has obviously taken its toll on the BBC news department. This is a crapass news report!

After that headline, confirming the LYING Lord Hutton and his report, there is this, buried down deep in the article:

---

(One of the objectors), former coroner Dr Michael Powers, told the BBC that there was "nothing new" in the post-mortem report, which he said should have been made available at the time of the official inquiry and open to full scrutiny.

"There is a need still to address many of issues which have already been raised and which these reports do not answer," he said.

They did not resolve the "major conflict" in the evidence about the amount of blood found at the scene and uncertainty over the number of pills Dr Kelly had taken.

"He may have taken far less than 29 tablets," Dr Powers said. "If he were only to have taken six to eight tablets, what does that say about his intent to take his own life? I don't believe any of the evidence we have seen or heard to date can answer those questions." --from the OP (my emphasis)

---

Why wasn't the headline: "Doubts persist about Lord Hutton report on David Kelly's death"??, or "Lord Hutton defends Kelly report amidst continuing doubts"??

THAT is the appropriate headline tone for this content, not...

"Kelly wounds 'self-inflicted', says pathology report
Previously secret evidence about the death of Iraq weapons expert Dr David Kelly suggests that he died as a result of a "self-inflicted injury".

Or, the above headline should have been worded this way:

"Kelly wounds 'self-inflicted', says SAME OLD pathology report
Previously secret evidence about the death of Iraq weapons expert Dr David Kelly STILL suggests that he died as a result of a "self-inflicted injury".

--------------------------------

I've added the BBC to my list of once-reputable, now disgraceful, news organizations:

The New York Slimes
The Wall Street Urinal
The Associated Pukes
Rotters
The Washington Psst
and the BBCons.

[Peace Patriot]

2. More comment on the reporting. It appears that other British media are doing the same thing--

reporting the RELEASE of this heretofore secret post-mortem report as if it were true. See the list of headlines for other news sites at the bottom of the BBC report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11603539

Although other news organizations are doing the same thing, re headlines, I have a bit more respect for the Guardian's news article, which at least gives the reason why they are all doing this (--it's not convincing, but here it is):

---

Today's reports undermine those who have questioned the official version of events, as the conclusions of the postmortem examination by Dr Nicholas Hunt matched those in Hutton's original report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/22/david-kelly-postmortem-self-inflicted
(my emphasis)

---

HOWEVER, I never expected the postmortem report to DIFFER from Hutton's conclusions. I've thought all along that the postmortem report (based on reports of its contents) and Hutton's report were extremely biased toward suicide and ignored or "explained away" critically importance evidence on a conclusion of suicide--the lack of blood at the scene, the non-lethal dose of co-proximal, his "choice" of an artery that would close (not bleed excessively), Dr. Kelly's expert knowledge of biology and chemistry, his "choice" of places to die (out in the cold, in the rain--worst place to make blood flow), no suicide note, contrary evidence of his optimism and looking forward to the future (his daughter's wedding) and more.

The postmortem report EXAGGERATES the drug and the cut WAY BEYOND THE FACTS, and adds that these things, "...coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery disease..played a part in"--killing him, "more certainly and more rapidly than would have otherwise been the case."

Another credit to the Guardian--they at least describe the report in detail:

--

"It is my opinion that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of David Kelly is the bleeding from the incised wounds to his left wrist," said Hunt. "Had this not occurred he may well not have died at this time. "Furthermore, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the ingestion of an excess number of co-proxamol tablets coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery disease would both have played a part in bringing about death more certainly and more rapidly than would have otherwise been the case."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/22/david-kelly-postmortem-self-inflicted

--

But the Guardian article fails in many ways similar to the BBC article. Consider this:

--

To add to the controversy, Detective Constable Graham Coe, who found the body, said there had not been much blood at the scene.

However today's report found Kelly's arterial injury "resulted in the loss of a significant volume of blood as noted at the scene ... The orientation and arrangement of the wounds over the left wrist are typical of self-inflicted injury".--Guardian

--

The Guardian just lets this stand. There was NO "significant volume" of blood" "noted at the scene." The OPPOSITE was noted by several first responders, whose testimony was EXCLUDED by Lord Hutton. And they, too--the Guardian--say "today's report." This is NOT "today's" report. This the OLD report that Hutton used to bias the inquiry, to exclude crucial evidence and to fail to consider any other possible causes of Kelly's death.

This post-mortem report is BIASED, as expected. Lord Hutton was in a position to choose somebody who WOULD bias the report in this way. And the release of the report--from the 70 years of secrecy that Hutton had consigned it to--far from settling any question, raises MORE questions. Why was the testimony of first responders, who found barely any blood at the scene, excluded from the inquiry--if, as the report claims, the cut wound contributed to Kelly's death and Kelly INTENDED that outcome? Why was all the evidence that he WASN'T suicidal excluded or disregarded? Why was dissenting experts' testimony excluded? Why was Dr. Kelly's biology/chemistry expertise not mentioned, in a conclusion of suicide? Why was this narrowly focused and obviously biased post-mortem report not subjected to RIGOROUS PEER REVIEW?

The truth is that the circumstances of Kelly's death point as strongly to an ARRANGED death scene as they do to suicide--in fact, more so, all factors considered (Kelly's expertise, etc.) This was a HALF-ASSED suicide attempt, IF it was a suicide attempt. And somebody who murdered him (for which there were plenty of motives by those perpetrating the Iraq War) would likely use their own "experts" to arrange the scene just this way, to create "evidence" that a superficial, biased report could USE to conclude suicide, at least long enough to get Tony Blair out of the line of fire, and, oh, the presidency of the EU for cover.