The MP who thinks David Kelly was murdered
James Forsyth 10:54am
Norman Baker, the Lib Dem MP, has gained a reputation in Westminster as one of the best ferreters out of information. But his new theories about how David Kelly died appear a little far-fetched. (Anything which involves letters from people who sign themselves ‘Nemesis’ seems a little suspect to me). David Aaronvitch in The Times does a great job of debunking Baker’s thesis and poses a challenge to Baker: “Since the fearless Mr Baker believes it is impossible to die in the way Dr Kelly is supposed to have done, then he should be able to meet the simple challenge of himself taking 29 co-proxamol tablets and then slitting his left ulnar artery. Unless, of course, he secretly suspects that the next day Nick Clegg or Chris Huhne would find themselves looking for a new Shadow to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.”
One can only hope that Baker doesn't feel obliged to take Aaronvitch up on this challenge.
Previous
Comments
Michael McGowan
October 23rd, 2007 11:17amStephen, given Aaronovitch has been the most slavish of Blair's apologists in relation to Iraq, it is hardly surprising that he has rushed into print to defend his lord and master. Baker never said that it was "impossible" to die in the way in which Kelly is supposed to have done. He simply said that it was a highly inefficient way to commit suicide and therefore the suicide ruling was suspect. Most people in this country of independent judgment regard the Hutton Enquiry as wholly unsatisfactory. Well done Norman Baker for digging deep into matters which our rulers would rather bury.
antifrank
October 23rd, 2007 11:31amExcept he doesn't debunk it. He sneers at it (as is Aaronovitch's wont), and aside from offering reasonable scepticism about the motive offered, gives no good reason for disbelieving Norman Baker apart from damning him by association with a totally unconnected case. The concluding passage of the article is the journalism of the sewer. I do not claim to have any expert knowledge about this case, and I have an open mind. Norman Baker has drawn attention to anomalies that ought to be resolved. Is it too much to ask that the most politically-charged death so far this century is made the subject of an inquest?
john sheppard
October 23rd, 2007 12:17pmTypical of a Blair apologist. There was no evidence that he took the tablets , only that that number were missing from the packet. There was not enough blood for an artery to have been cut , ask any paramedic or doctor Why the haste , and why Hutton Just ask yourself who had most to gain
Mike
October 23rd, 2007 12:30pmA lot of people harbour significant doubts about the death of Dr. Kelly. I am no wild-eyed conspiracy theorist, but also believe that the Hutton inquiry was woeful (to the shredding of Lord Hutton's reputation) and it skimmed over the actual circumstances of Dr. Kellys death. There should be a full inquiry or at least a re-examination.
Daffy
October 23rd, 2007 12:56pmIt is very strange that for a death of this kind and for such a high profile figure that there is no proper enquiry into his death.
Ruairidh
October 23rd, 2007 7:35pmBaker is a crank. A conspiracy theorist that is an embaressment to his party and to critical thought in general. As for other commenters, remember conspiracy theorists (and their cheerleaders) are never convinced with logic.
Gervas Douglas
October 23rd, 2007 7:42pmWhen you look at the evidence the haste with which the authorities declared it to be a suicide was about as convincing as the alleged suicide of Vince Foster.
Al
October 24th, 2007 1:23pmas always.. cover up by the government so their lies didn't come out. We want to jump on the russians for killing someone with plutonium but we never look at our own actions. typical double standards
Colin Munro
January 2nd, 2008 1:29amA trite, fatuous challenge by Aaronvitch. If that is the limit of his logical thinking he's clearly in the wrong job. As was very clearly pointed by Baker, that amount of co-proxamol, combined with slitting of the ulnar artery, would likely leave anyone permanently physically damaged. Of course that wouldn't worry anyone, would it David, so refusing your challenge clearly suggests you are right. Brilliant argument you have there David.