David Kelly post mortem to be kept secret for 70 years

#1
Clearly nothing to hide then :roll:


Vital evidence which could solve the mystery of the death of Government weapons inspector Dr David Kelly will be kept under wraps for up to 70 years.
In a draconian – and highly unusual – order, Lord Hutton, the peer who chaired the controversial inquiry into the Dr Kelly scandal, has secretly barred the release of all medical records, including the results of the post mortem, and unpublished evidence.
The move, which will stoke fresh speculation about the true circumstances of Dr Kelly’s death, comes just days before Tony Blair appears before the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War.

It is also bound to revive claims of an establishment cover-up and fresh questions about the verdict that Dr Kelly killed himself.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ncealing-vital-information.html#ixzz0dUSD2KET
 
#2
Someone will leak it, hopefully 48hrs before the next election.
 
#5
How about a bill in parliament that says if you are in anyway complicit in Kelly's death, your children and grandchildren will be given to the taliban (yeah, like we're not still going to be in Pakgahnistan in 70 years time!) to sharpen their knifes on and see if the truth doesn't come out then from them. There must be a least 1 person who loves their kids who would tell the truth, wouldn't there?
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
well, 'if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear'.


so clearly some cnut's bricking it over the truth. unless it's been decided by someone who *wants* to hang teflon tone out to dry... even the Grauniad have turned against him.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/24/blair-chilcot-inquiry

'Maureen Shearer, from Nun­eaton, mother of 26-year-old Second Lieutenant Richard Shearer, killed in 2005, turned down the offer [of seats at the iraq inquiry], fearing the inquiry might be a "cover-up" and that she might lash out and slap Blair if she got near him. Rather than enter the ballot for seats, she sent a response saying she blamed Blair for not correctly equipping soldiers. The prime minister, she said, could be held directly responsible for Richard's death. "He was to blame a lot as an individual and as the prime minister. He did what the US wanted him to do, he took us in. He lied."

That, in a nutshell, is the case for the prosecution, the charge-sheet against Blair drawn up by critics of the war.'

distinctly not on-message I feel...
 

Command_doh

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
Werewolf said:
Command_doh said:
Did anyone actually believe he wasn't assassinated?
You mean apart from Ashie, Sven and Whet?
Of course you are right, but I don't think Liarbour employees or activists should be considered on account of their unrelenting bias skewing all possibility of a rational opinion or negating any chance of them being taken remotely seriously.
 
#11
Shush before you all get taken for a "Walk" in the Countryside........


Now whos that knocking at this time of night?......Strange I don't know anyone with a black helicopt...............
 
#14
Sinner251 said:
auscam said:
How to perpetuate a conspiracy theory...
This shower of excrement that is our Goverment probabley has shares in a tinfoil company.
The Government doesn't seem to have invoked those old chestnuts 'national security' or 'in the public interest'. I agree, though, some insider will leak the details sooner or later, perhaps out of sheer disgust, or possibly shame.

Lord Hutton clearly knows which side his bread's buttered on. I wonder who gave him his orders? Any guesses?

WILD HYPOTHESIS; could Lord Hutton have suppressed this of his own volition, rather than doing as some nameless functionary bids him? If so, what might his motives be? (picks shreds of tinfoil from between teeth, twitches discreetly)
 
#15
Command_doh said:
Did anyone actually believe he wasn't assassinated?
Me. I did not believe that he had been assasinated. If this story is true, I was probably wrong. 70 years? FFS, never heard of anything like that before. Wasn't there a 30 year maximum?
 
#16
The whole thing stinks, but like the MPs expenses scandal we know nothing will ever be done about it, welcome to 1984.

I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but in this case something is very wrong.
 
#17
StickyEnd said:
Command_doh said:
Did anyone actually believe he wasn't assassinated?
Me. I did not believe that he had been assasinated. If this story is true, I was probably wrong. 70 years? FFS, never heard of anything like that before. Wasn't there a 30 year maximum?
I thought so, except for the most highly sensitive stuff from WW2, which had a 50 year limit.
 
#18
This doesn't make the whole affair highly suspect AT ALL.

Any betting that the records will be 'lost' in this 70 year hiatus? And who will give a sh1t in 70 years? Not the feral, multi-culteral chav scum infestation that will be referred to as a 'population' that is for sure.
 
#19
Command_doh said:
Did anyone actually believe he wasn't assassinated?


Paging Sven/Whet, Ashie/Paperpuke…
 
#20
It would not be a conspiracy if Lord Hutton clearly stated the reasons why he was hiding the truth for 70 years, then sit back and wait for the News of the World to publish the info in 70 days.

I suppose he could be challenged in the courts but then again, lets just wait till the election and the anihalation of labour, which may stir some changes and allow more truths to come out.

I'll get my coat
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads