|
and death occurring elsewhere, he thinks Kelly killed himself.
How? And how did he move his own dead body to the woods? Doesn't make sense, and the article just leaves this item hanging.
WHAT was the cause of death--if not the wrist wound, and not painkillers (also ruled out)? WAS it the wrist wound, but it occurred elsewhere, where all the blood was deposited (leaving his clothes untouched)? If he dragged himself around in the woods, after slashing his wrist, still managing to get only a drop or two of blood on his clothes, where was the trail of blood that a dying man would leave?
CLEARLY this body was MOVED. That is the only conclusion that one can come to. WHO moved him? And the wrist cut is an extremely unlikely cause of death, in any case. So how does Coe leap from these facts to suicide? There is no explanation. There should have been follow up to that statement.
-------------------
I am reminded, seeing the photo of the two policemen at Kelly's house, in July 2003, after he was found dead--photo accompanying the article--of what the Blair government did to Kelly that week. After interrogating him at a "safe house," and forcing him to testify to a parliamentary defense committee, they outed him to the press and sent him home without protection and apparently without surveillance. Kelly was a very high profile target of both the press and the war profiteers. He was a highly respected, loyal insider in the British military establishment--a UN weapons inspector, a top bio-chem weapons expert. The Blair government's hunt for this whistleblower was flaming headlines for many weeks. His name and image were major news. It is also clear that the Blair government was alarmed and angry at what he had said, and very probably fearful of what else he might say. It is therefore absurd to presume that this whistleblower was not being watched, after he was released and went home. Where were his watchers, as he slit his wrist, outdoors, and slowly bled to death all night out in the woods near his home? Number one. And number two, not even one policeman to accompany him home, to watch his house--to give him some peace from the press, to fend off intruders, to protect him, to accompany him on his walk in the woods--after he was outed? There stand two policemen in front of his house, after he is dead. Why weren't they there before his death?
I hope somebody ASKS this question in the new inquiries. Not only, "Where was his protection?" (which I think was raised in the Hutton sham, but not sufficiently dealt with), but also, "Was he under surveillance?", and, if so, "where were his watchers while he lay dying"? (All they needed to do was make one, anonymous phone call, alerting emergency services.)
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
