Saturday, April 14, 2007

Norman Baker's presentation:

Norman Baker's presentation 'The Strange Death of Dr David Kelly' in Lewes, 11th April 2007, was extraordinarily successful. The All Saints Centre in Lewes was full, the atmosphere was electric, and Norman gave an excellent lecture - clear, unsensationalised and pragmatic, sticking resolutely to facts and making a virtually unarguable case that the WMD "45 minutes"dossier was bogus and that the death of weapons inspector David Kelly could not have been due to suicide.

The audience were understandably left to draw their own conclusions as to who was responsible for the implied murder, buteveryone got the point. Considering the gravity of the subject matter, Norman gave a surprisingly upbeat, but appropriately sensitive presentation that resulted in a standing ovation and nearly two minutes of solid applause.

For those who were unable to come, but would like to hear Norman's lecture, an audio recording of it has now been uploaded as a podcast.

This can befound at:

Changing Times

Personal Note:

In my view it is important to reach no conclusions at this stage on whether Dr Kelly's death was murder or suicide. The correct place to make that assessment is in a court of law, where the full weight of evidence can be made available.

Rowena Thursby


Ken from glos said...

This mans death, whether suicide or murder should have been enough to bring this Government down.

But it didn,t they even won a third term and have managed to make all politics look like spin. A very polite word for lies..

I hope you get somewhere with this.My best wishes to you.

Anonymous said...

Argus report

The greatest British conspiracy theory -- I say, "Shame on you, Baker."

The official report into the death of Dr David Kelly concluded he committed suicide – and yet Mr. Baker persists in trying to make money (Mr. Baker has signed a book deal) on the back of this sad story: even the close relatives wish Mr. Baker would stop. There is no mention of the fact that the widow accepted the govt. report.

My father committed suicide in Lisbon in the 1960’s, following a property deal that went wrong. My mother never came to terms with it, convinced that he had been murdered by casino crooks and/or MI5 spies. Support services for the grieving relatives were not as available as they are now.

To describe Baker’s story as a” beacon of truth” is worse than nonsense: more like a wrecking light, trying to get electoral advantage, both locally and nationally. He should be ashamed.

“He had a broken heart. He had shrunk into himself”. Mrs Kelly told
the Hutton Inquiry. She hasn’t spoken to this programme but she told
Rowena Thursby she has no doubts that her husband took his own
Rowena Thursby:
I spoke to Mrs Kelly on the phone. And, and she felt that her husband had in
fact, committed suicide. But that, that was her strong belief. But you know,
people can believe things very strongly but it doesn't mean to say that
they're actually true.

Anonymous said...

Are you OK? So few postings lately.

Patrick said...

anonymous 11.30am

I don't quite get the point of your post, the heading implies that the text you pasted below it was from a report in The Argus.

In fact it was just a comment posted by someone called Roy, in response to a quite different view by The Argus.

Roy obviously has personal reasons for being upset and this appears to have clouded his ability to look at the facts presented by Norman Baker and he has instead attacked Baker's motives. Whatever Baker's motives may be, that has nothing to do with the veracity of his presentation.

Anonymous said...

Norman Baker claims to show "beyond reasonable doubt" that Kelly's death wasn't suicide. That's a high standard of proof but does he make the case? I suggest not.

Let's consider what Baker's "investigation" shows us. At best he provides evidence that:

1) A combination of the drugs, injury to the wrist, and Kelly's supposed heart condition would not result in his death.
Baker claims that medical opinion supports his case, but this is not so - other experts dispute such unequivocal conclusions.

2) Motive. What would be the motive for murdering Kelly? Baker provides no solid evidence for settling this question. In his recent talk in Lewes, Baker talked in very general terms about who might benefit from Kelly's death. It's a long list, including politicians and the security services in this country, the US, Iraq, and possibly beyond.

3) The identity of the murderer(s). Baker asserts that Kelly's death wasn't suicide so it must be murder. Does he produce or claim to have evidence about the identity of the murderer(s)? He doesn't.

For the sake of argument let's be generous to Baker - let's assume he has shown 1) - that it is impossible for the official cause of death to be correct. If so, do we know what killed Kelly? He offers no evidence to support an alternative account, so at best we don't know.

What is the motive? We don't know.

Who were the killers? We don't know.

Does all that add up to a demonstration "beyond reasonable doubt" that Kelly didn't commit suicide? No.

Anonymous said...

Two months and no new posts. Have you reached the end of the road?

Suhaylsaadi said...

To just about everyone outside Britain, it's quite obvious that Kelly was assassinated, it's just that here in the UK we cannot believe that such things can happen - unless it's in, say, Russia or else done by Russians in London, when we're very ready to believe anything at all. Kelly was killed because he knew too much (he'd been head of Porton Down, for goodness sake) and had become unreliable and also as a dire warning to other whistleblowers in the state apparatus. His knowledge, used in the service of revealing the truth, could have punctured the balloon of lies carrying a key part of the strategic geo-political aims of the USA-UK axis. People have been killed for far less.