I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
If the NYT broke this story, could we assume that the unnamed journalist is an NYT staffer? Judith Miller, perhaps?
"Slain," eh? Well, it does sound like that. Going for a "habitual" daily walk is quite inconsistent with suicide.
It apparently was Miller. Which may be why he's dead now.
Paleo, I have been out-of-the-loop most of the day. Have you seen the Miller reference "officially" cited anywhere?
Why is it I have the feeling the sanctions with extreme prejudice are just beginning?
He was killed, he was just killed, for whatever reason. It's disgusting that the human race still feels the need to do such things in the name of greed and power. God help us all, we are damned to hell.
And I'm not even religious.
-Joe
Yes, the e-mail was sent to a "Judy Miller" in New York, who works for the New York Times. There can't be more than one, can there?
This link is from the Sunday Mail:
http://tinyurl.com/hgd7
Power at any cost
Thanks Paleo. I hadn't seen that one.
Wait a minute. At this point, I can no more believe that Kelly was murdered to keep a secret than I could that Foster was. A little Occam's Razor, anyone? Depressed guy, under pressure...he could certainly believe there were "dark actors" if his world view were tainted. Until there's more evidence, I'd say the simplest explanation is that this was suicide. C'mon, save that tin foil: we're going to need it for the war effort.
NTodd, Can I at least go out and buy some tin foil, just in case? If I don't use it, I can store it with all the plastic sheeting and duct tape I bought last year!
Nah, it's called keep the attention away from Blair and company.
These @ssholes have no conscience at all.
Tim Burt, media editor of "The Financial Times" blames the BBC for David Kelly death in really acerbic column this morning Silence could prove salvation or damnation
I actually thought that The Finanical Times leaned a bit liberal but not any more folks.
According to Burt this case will hurt the truly justifiable journalist/source confidentiality right law that protects journalist from having to expose their sources.
It’s gets really ugly and I’m telling you it’s a Tom DeLay/Bush/Cheney wet dream like none other. I’m sure Bush would love to get a hold of his visceral hated informant.
Any inquiry or court case could also find the corporation culpable. In that instance, senior resignations would be inevitable. The BBC's carefully constructed defence would collapse.
BBC executives are pinning their hopes on an insistence that Mr Kelly may not have been the main source for the BBC report - by Today correspondent Andrew Gilligan - alleging the government "sexed up" a dossier justifying the case for war.
Any judicial inquiry would press the BBC to end its vow of silence over its sources. Failure to do so, or a defensive position that it merely reported in good faith claims that turned out to be false could expose the broadcaster.
If Mr Kelly can be confirmed as the source then the BBC also faces difficulties because, in his public evidence to a Commons inquiry, he could not identify himself on the basis of the story that was aired.
But the corporation will be exonerated if evidence emerges that Mr Kelly was not the prime source.
A truly ugly and scary news piece folks but I don’t think ”Any judicial inquiry would press the BBC to end its vow of silence over its sources.” If anything else the death of David Kelly illustrates the need for confidentiality clauses.
As I said earlier today, if there is an unusually high death rate among scientists whose professional opinions might embarass those in power with imperial aspirations, we should use the Razor to slice away the data to the core:
A large number of scientists whose professional opinions would embarass the current Anglo-American axis are turning up dead.
I won't argue how they died. I note the fact, however. Close your eyes and hope Dean can make it all go away- I hope you're right.
But I don't think so.
And my eyes and mind will remain open, if covered by titanium-foil headgear. Tinfoil just don't cut it anymore...
Look, we're getting away from the real issue here. I'm sorry that Dr. Kelly died, but Blair's crime contributed to his death, one way or another.
Tony Blair deceived Parliament and the British people and went to war. He needs to be ousted. He's the guilty one.
The BBC had better not reveal anything. No way.
A little Occam's Razor, anyone?
Any chance of getting people to wait until the autopsy before making these tasteless speculations?
Didn't think so; fortunately Mrs. Kelly probably doesn't read this 'blog.
Sorry to embarass anyone.
However, the facts are the facts and the facts are:
Scientists whose professional opinions would embarass the current Anglo-American pro-empire axis have been turning up dead since 9/11/01.
kelly b:
Want to mention a few names?
kelley b., where's that hidden envelope with damning evidence that will be revealed in the "event of my death"?
They never saw it coming?
I don't need conspiracy theories. Reality is bad enough.
But it's not hopeless, by any stretch of the imagination. Discontent equals regime change.
Molly - That was kind of my point, but oof, all the same. And I didn't even catch my unfortunate choice of phrase 'til just now.
NTodd, Can I at least go out and buy some tin foil, just in case?
Blake, you can do whatever makes you feel secure. Just don't waste the foil. When making hats, many people use too much.
NTodd, well I do wear a 7 and 3/4 cap, but I will try to not overdo it.
The political editor writes counter balance column today for Burt ugly words to the BBC.
Was he thrown to the wolves?
By James Blitz, Political Editor
Published: July 19 2003 5:00 | Last Updated: July 19 2003 5:00
When the judicial inquiry convenes to look into the death of David Kelly, one question may be uppermost in its mind: did Tony Blair's aides put the scientist's name into the public domain to pursue their public battle with the BBC?
In the words of one Tory MP: was Mr Kelly "thrown to the wolves" by a ruthless political machine or was yesterday's tragedy the culmination of a series of political accidents and unforeseen events for which blame attaches to everyone and yet to no-one at the same time?
Key to understanding what happened are the 10 days between Mr Kelly becoming known to government strategists and the moment his name was made public.
Attention will focus in particular on the daily strategy meeting convened by Alastair Campbell, Downing Street's head of communications, held each morning at 8.30am and attended by most of the heads of information across Whitehall.
There is no doubt that Mr Kelly, a senior adviser to the Ministry of Defence on chemical and biological weapons, wrote to the MoD of his own volition on June 30, expressing concern that he may have been the source of Andrew Gilligan's radio report of May 29.
On Tuesday July 8, a statement issued by the MoD said an unnamed official had come forward who could have been the source of Mr Gilligan's controversial radio report on the government's weapons of mass destruction dossier. The statement suggested the official's name would be given to the Intelligence and Security committee in confidence "should they wish to interview him."
Geoff Hoon, defence secretary, identified him in a private letter to the BBC governors. Two days later - on the morning of Thursday July 10 - Mr Kelly's name had been revealed in most national newspapers, including the first edition of the FT.
In the light of his death, the question arises as to how the private proceedings surrounding Mr Kelly turned out to be so public.--
--But Mr Blair's aides indicated last night that, while they may be determined to prove Mr Gilligan's story wrong, they never had any plan to put Mr Kelly's name in the public domain.
They make numerous points to back their case. They noted that Mr Kelly personally cleared the statement made on July 9 indicating that an unnamed official had approached the MoD. Mr Kelly acknowledged his name might become public, given that few people work in the field.
Secondly, they argued that if journalists did obtain his name - as they did - it would have been unfair not to confirm his identity, given the small number of people working in the field of chemical and biological weapons.
Thirdly, they argued that
oops again.
Thirdly, they argued that, once Mr Kelly had first approached the MoD on June 30, any attempt to disguise this would have been deemed a cover-up.
Downing Street will also argue that it invited the BBC to indicate - first privately, then publicly - whether Mr Kelly was indeed the source. If it had flatly denied this was the case, this might have immediately taken him out of the spotlight.
I think Kelly's wife is mostly source of how Kelly felt... She should say something in his behalf.
That should be:
I think Mr. Kelly's wife is the most likly source of how Kelly felt before he died... She should say something on his behalf.
"Dr Kelly, The New York Times reported yesterday, sent the message to an unnamed journalist saying he wanted to wait "until the end of the week" before judging how his appearance before the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee had gone."
This is e-mail was sent hours before his death. It strikes me as odd that someone on the verge of suicide would want to put off anything until the end of the week. Or am I messing up the timeline on all of this?
I really was leaning in favor of suicide before I read this, but now it seems to me that murder was more likely though not by any means certain.
"But the government scientist had also sent a "combative" email to Professor Alastair Hay, a friend who had expressed the hope that he was dealing with the pressure, in which he "expressed a determination to overcome the scandal encircling him and an enthusiasm about returning to Iraq". "Hopefully it will soon pass and I will get back to Baghdad and get on with the real job," the email said."
When was this e-mail to Hay sent? If within hours of his disappearance or even days, it too would seem to make suicide a less likely explanation. Again, I'm not saying he didn't kill himself. It just seems to me to look less likely than murder given what we can gather from reports.
It seems certain to me anyone taking the murder side of the debate needn't wear a tinfoil hat.
"Dr Kelly, The New York Times reported yesterday, sent the message to an unnamed journalist saying he wanted to wait "until the end of the week" before judging how his appearance before the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee had gone."
This is e-mail was sent hours before his death. It strikes me as odd that someone on the verge of suicide would want to put off anything until the end of the week. Or am I messing up the timeline on all of this?
I really was leaning in favor of suicide before I read this, but now it seems to me that murder was more likely though not by any means certain.
"But the government scientist had also sent a "combative" email to Professor Alastair Hay, a friend who had expressed the hope that he was dealing with the pressure, in which he "expressed a determination to overcome the scandal encircling him and an enthusiasm about returning to Iraq". "Hopefully it will soon pass and I will get back to Baghdad and get on with the real job," the email said."
When was this e-mail to Hay sent? If within hours of his disappearance or even days, it too would seem to make suicide a less likely explanation. Again, I'm not saying he didn't kill himself. It just seems to me to look less likely than murder given what we can gather from reports.
It seems certain to me anyone taking the murder side of the debate needn't wear a tinfoil hat.
Excuse my jumping to conclusions but if you read the article it certainly sounds as if Kelly was planning to be around for awhile.
Note that he "wanted to wait 'until the end of the week' before judging how his appearance before the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee had gone."
-------
"But the government scientist had also sent a 'combative' email to Professor Alastair Hay, a friend who had expressed the hope that he was dealing with the pressure, in which he 'expressed a determination to overcome the scandal encircling him and an enthusiasm about returning to Iraq'. 'Hopefully it will soon pass and I will get back to Baghdad and get on with the real job,' the email said."
And no goodbys to his family? Perhaps it was suicide. Perhaps not.
Oops. Looks like Q beat me to the punch.
Hi Charles M.,
See
http://
www.cooperativeresearch.o...nownpeople.html
See
http://www.cooperativeresearch.o.../
AAanthrax.html
See
http://
globeandmail.workopolis.c...section=Science
Dr. Benito Que,
Dr. Valdimir Pasechnik
Dr. Robert Schwartz
Dr. Victor Korshunov
Dr. Ian Langford
Dr. Don Wiley
... the list goes on, and on.
And oh, yeah, Dr. David Kelly, a most recent and highest profile one.
Look, there's a lot of evidence. A lot of this may be paranoid association. Still, check out the leads especially at the Center for Cooperative Research. Run some searches. Drop a dime in their box, they need it.
Do some scientific literature searches if it's your bag.
But don't close your eyes. And don't just blame the US government. I get the impression at least some of the kids at the CIA are on our side.
There's more than one player in our government, I think.
And more than one government playing.
And keep those tinfoil hats handy.
kelley b. - I made chapeau weeks ago, when all this first started, with CIA leaks and counter leaks. I got a most vivid picture of what looked to be going on. I think my foil was picking up really good signals.
Actually, I'm serious. I, too, believe that someone or several someones in the intelligence community are trying to save our necks.
And I think that it's so strange that I can believe that that I don't like to talk about it. It sounds too crazy -
Talk about suicide only helps disguise Blair’s crime on this matter, which was to throw Kelly out in order 1. For him to name others, 2. To smoke out the BBC to either confirm or deny Kelly as the source. This is the cowardly game the "dark actors" were playing.
The yammer about suicide paints the anti Blairites as nutters, and this the warmongering bastards just fine.
Should be:
...and this suits the warmongering bastards just fine.
"Slain" is a little over the top. I would hate to see Eschaton get put on the internet conspiracy-mongering list.
Let's wait for the evidence.
Jeesh, not enough coffee. Let's try again.
Talk about Kelly being slain only helps disguise Blair’s crime on this matter, which was to throw Kelly out in order 1. For him to name others, 2. To smoke out the BBC to either confirm or deny Kelly as the source. This is the cowardly game the "dark actors" were playing.
The yammer about suicide paints the anti Blairites as nutters, and this suits the warmongering bastards just fine.
Well, hopefully some of the more mainline democrats are beginning to read sites like this. I've heard speculation that some journalists are too. Perhaps if somebody important gets it in their head that there are some Really Dirty Players running this country they might start to play some hardball.
Certainly Krugman has, but he's 'just' an economics professor and NY Times columnist.
Senator Byrd has, but many democrats seem to feel he's gone off the deep end awhile back. I think history will show that man, while having gone through some dramatic changes in his political career, was a bastion and voice for freedom in some of darkest hours after 9/11. And if some readers don't agree with me- time will tell.
But these last few months, and particularly this last week or so, have passed with increasing public moments of real backbone against the imperial axis- and not just among democrats.
This is encouraging. But we should not forget what has happened. And in our eagerness to leave the nightmare, we should not tell ourselves it is only a bad dream.
kelley b. I don't want to agree with you, but I have to. To date, this administration has done unspeakable things that I never would have believed possible. So, I don't think you are over the top here.
' "Slain" is a little over the top. I would hate to see Eschaton get put on the internet conspiracy-mongering list.
Let's wait for the evidence.'
Heavens, no. We wouldn't want to embarass any mainline respectable democrats out there...
other than his WMD link, what type of scientist was he?
There have an extraordinary amount of death's in the scientific community, microbiologists and such, over the past three years.
"' "Slain" is a little over the top. I would hate to see Eschaton get put on the internet conspiracy-mongering list."
Unfortunately those conspiracy sites have the stories sooner than other sites. And are proven correct frequently.
Compare the postings at whatreallyhappened.com and this site, for example. WRH has the story within hours of posting, here they usually appear within days.
Those conspiracy nuts are thorough, and want that information out before it slips down the memory hole.
" Actually, I'm serious. I, too, believe that someone or several someones in the intelligence community are trying to save our necks."
Their own necks. We are just collateral aid.
If they wanted to save our necks, we would have another lone gunman.
"We wouldn't want to embarass any mainline respectable democrats out there..."
Where, where?
Oh wait a minute, I see Kucinich, and Rev Al. Everything else is darkness.
Well, I don't want Eschaton to become a conspiracy site either. People who do that are better at doing it than we could ever be. For myself, the world is (even) more complicated than conspiracy, since unconscious motivation is more powerful and widely distributed than conscious motivation.
OK, so that proves "I'm part of it." Oh well!
But the Globe and Mail is one of the world's great papers... Readers can start from there, and decide if they want to make their tinfoil hats on their own.
"To date, this administration has done unspeakable things that I never would have believed possible."
Oh come on, you aren't that naive are you? All administrations do that.
What about Clinton signing off on that doctor prosecution for medical marijuana perscriptions? Or Johnson and the fakery in Nam.
Or the USS Liberty, and Israeli attack on it.
Was there ever in history an honest ruling class?
Just a thought - Ok, makes sense. I can't believe I'm saying that, but it does. And I believe there are links to 9/11 in all this somewhere, and timing was no accident on when the leaks started.
Ok, I'm outed - I'm into tinfoil hat country all the way on this.
Just a thought- Don't even joke about that.
Don't you think this site is monitored by the feds? And to even suggest such a thing is a federal offense. While Atrios doesn't mind exposing the facts, there are threads that might cause problems.
Although the like o' Coulter and Limbaugh could freely suggest that about Clinton, this administration is completely different. Which is the problem...
I know you think you're anonymous- but are you sure?
"For myself, the world is (even) more complicated than conspiracy, since unconscious motivation is more powerful and widely distributed than conscious motivation."
yes, and midgets have amazingly large penii to make up for what they lack in height.
Conspiracies go on everyday. Minor, major, they exist in every occupation and walk of life. Read the news, listen to annecdotes about co-workers screwing one and other.
Just look at how many times varying police agencies around the US, and world, have been caught falsifying evidence.
" Don't you think this site is monitored by the feds? And to even suggest such a thing is a federal offense. While Atrios doesn't mind exposing the facts, there are threads that might cause problems."
No one was suggesting that someone should do that. Just pointing out historical occurences.
No need to fear, it wasn't like the guy and his burning bush joke.
"I know you think you're anonymous- but are you sure?"
I know I am not. I also know where the line is. I'm secure in not crossing it.
We just know wht the CIA gets up to, how many assassinations of foriegn leaders actually happened.
Hell, we all know about the plans for castro's demise.
lambert - I almost never believe conspiracies. In fact, I don't think I ever have believed one completely. But there is something weird going on.
And it's not over, by a long shot.
It's spooky that the Globe and Mail has seen fit to write a story about this. But then, we all know that journalists love a little sensation, too. For kicks -- or serious research, too, though of what I would not pretend to tell you -- you might pay
http://seekers.100megs6.com/scie.../
scientists.htm
But that would appear to be a haberdasher-that-specialises-in-the-use-of thin-sheets-of-aluminum kind of hangout. I do recall the very mysterious disappearance of Don Wiley, who was apparently really really big-time in microbiology. His car was found on a bridge in Tennessee, with the keys in the ignition and a full tank of gas. That bubbled up to the surface, but haven't heard much about it since.
Pie
It's all in a Directory on a drive of mine named "The Truth is Out There". The file name is named "The X-files". I have a directory icon that's the logo from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
... and I thought David Kelly was primarily an environmental toxicologist, Just a thought. Though I could be wrong. I believe quite a few of the bodies since 9/11 have been doing work like that and not just bioweapon microbiology.
A question for the journalists out there: Why would the NYT break this on Friday PM/Sat AM, citing that the email was sent to a "journalist", but not mention that the "journalist" was one of their own (Judith Miller)? The British papers, from what I can tell, were the first to report it was Judith Miller.
By the way, she was in the byline of the original NYT story. Am I missing something? Do I have the timeline mixed up?
The best thing we can do for now is shelve the speculation and wait for the story to develop. The British press will not let this go, whether this man was their source or not.
So let's just try to be patient while the situation unfolds, and see what the evidence points to.
Yesterday on CSpan I watched Dr Kelley's Wed (?) appearance before the parliamentary committee. While he clearly wasn't having fun and was a bit tentative and cautious in his answers I thought he did well. Neither distraught nor overwhelmed - he looked very credible to me. And the storyline seemed to be that while he had talked to Gilligan (BBC) he was not the source of the most contentious parts of Gilligan's story on the BBC. But then Gilligan said that Kelly wasn't his main source and that there were others. So it was not obvious that Kelley was in any sort of box because of the public hearings. There was a private hearing on Thursday I believe.
On the other hand I read in the UK press comments that Kelley's government job/pension were being threatened by the MOD - violation of secrets act etc. Linkage: testimony - pension?
http://www.cryptogon.com/index.html
"Microbiology: The Most Dangerous Area of Inquiry in the World :.
In case you haven't noticed, the world's top microbiologists are dying.
The MURDER of David Kelly in Britain brings the total of dead experts in microbiology to thirteen. To call Kelly's death a suicide is complete folly."
Who they were:
1. Nov. 12, 2001:
Benito Que was said to have been beaten in a Miami parking lot and died later.
2. Nov. 16, 2001:
Don C. Wiley went missing. Was found Dec. 20. Investigators said he got dizzy on a Memphis bridge and fell to his death in a river.
3. Nov. 21, 2001:
Vladimir Pasechnik, former high-level Russian microbiologist who defected in 1989 to the U.K. apparently died from a stroke.
4. Dec. 10, 2001:
Robert M. Schwartz was stabbed to death in Leesberg, Va. Three Satanists have been arrested.
5. Dec. 14, 2001:
Nguyen Van Set died in an airlock filled with nitrogen in his lab in Geelong, Australia.
6. Feb. 9, 2002:
Victor Korshunov had his head bashed in near his home in Moscow.
7. Feb. 14, 2002:
Ian Langford was found partially naked and wedged under a chair in Norwich, England.
8. 9. Feb. 28, 2002:
San Francisco resident Tanya Holzmayer was killed by a microbiologist colleague, Guyang Huang, who shot her as she took delivery of a pizza and then apparently shot himself.
10. March 24, 2002:
David Wynn-Williams died in a road accident near his home in Cambridge, England.
11. March 25, 2002:
Steven Mostow of the Colorado Health Sciences Centre, killed in a plane he was flying near Denver.
12. June 24, 2003:
Leland Rickman, Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine at the UCSD School of Medicine, died suddenly on June 24 while traveling and teaching medicine in Lesotho, Africa. Actual cause of death, apparently due to natural causes, is not known.
13. July 18, 2003
David Kelly, a British biological weapons expert, was said to have slashed his own wrists while walking near his home. Kelly was the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific officer and senior adviser to the proliferation and arms control secretariat, and to the Foreign Office's non-proliferation department. The senior adviser on biological weapons to the UN biological weapons inspections teams (Unscom) from 1994 to 1999, he was also, in the opinion of his peers, pre-eminent in his field, not only in this country, but in the world.
People Who Aren't on the Main List, but Probably Should Be
Nov. 5, 2001:
Jeffrey Paris Wall was said to have jumped from the parking structure at his place of work, the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers. See this entry for more details.
Sept. 30, 2002:
Christopher Legallo
Legallo died in a plane crash. He was a terrorism analyst for SAIC. His wife, Laura Koepfler, a weapons of mass destruction analyst for SAIC, was also supposed to be on the doomed plane, but decided to take a different flight at the last moment.
Oct. 10, 2002:
Linda Franklin was allegedly killed by the Lee Boyd Malvo/Joh
Oct. 10, 2002:
Linda Franklin was allegedly killed by the Lee Boyd Malvo/John Allen Muhammad sniper team. Franklin was a top analyst at the FBI National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC).
Nice little chop chop from Mirror columnist Paul Routledge.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/columnis.../paulroutledge/
It was never wise for Tony Blair to believe that he could manipulate the Labour Party to his advantage for ever. The beast is too big, too experienced, too committed to be moulded in the image of one man. Especially this one.
First, while it does appear that there are many scientists dying, to determine if that actually means anything, we'd need to determine how many "odd" deaths are occurring among scientists per capita, and then compare that to (1) The number of "odd" deaths among scientists, per capita, over a similar time frame, and (2) the number of "odd" deaths on a per capita basis for other occupational fields as well. It'd be best if the comparison groups could be well matched to the group of scientists on such factors as general health, age, fitness-level, where they live, and risks inherent in their jobs. Without a comparison group to see if the number of "odd" deaths is really out of line over a given time period or within a particular occupation, simply pointing out that 13 scientists died tells us nothing of use. It very well may be that these deaths are standing out and looking like some kind of pattern because once someone got the idea that there might be a pattern there, and others have since started looking for a furtherance of the pattern.
Imagine for a moment that within a 3 week period, three civil rights leaders all died. Someone might think that was a bit strange. Then 4 months later another one dies. The person is rather infatuated with their theory that there's a plot against civil rights leaders, and, well, 4 months isn't THAT far from the end of the three weeks, and if another dies within a few weeks, they can be added too. They can then keep adding to their list pretty much as often as they want to, with each addition being futher "proof" that there's some kind of attack going on against civil right's pioneers. It doesn't mean, though, that anything really IS happening. It's just how it looks to someone who wanted (consciously or not) to see a pattern. It could easily be the same thing happening here.
Secondly, the references to "waiting until the end of the week" or "wanting to go back to work" may or may not be telling. While most people who attempt suicide will leave a suicide note or try to put their affairs in order to do so, many others choose to not only leave any kind of farewell message behind, but actively try to make it appear that they are NOT suicidal, thus ensuring that they won't have people hovering over them, concerned about their mental well-being and keeping them from being able to do it. I could easily see someone who is exceptionally serious about killing him or her self try to plant such ideas so that when he goes off on a walk by himself and takes longer than normal to get back, no one gets alarmed immediately and sends out a search party. He'd want to be left along so that he can complete the job.
I can't say, obvoiusly, if that's "for sure" what happened, but it is a reasonable possiblity, which is part of why I'm waiting before I make up my mind one way or the other.
Lambert: I'm not sure if the reference in the update ("not Judith Miller") is meant for my earlier comment/question, but the article you linked to was not the one I was referring to.
The one I was referring to is datelined July 18 by Warren Hoge with Judith Miller. It buries the references to the e-mail deep in the article.
Link at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/1...ial/
19BRIT.html
Paging Vince Foster.
Yikes this site has the look and feel of FreeRepublic.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean they are not out to get you.
Besides, no one would commit murder just for money and power, would they?
dear kriselda jarnsaxa- and loudmouth
Why, I'm certain in Mississippi and its sister states during the 50's and 60's (and later?) that many of the good common folk would have welcomed your analysis about all the civil rights workers that also stopped breathing. However, unlike these death clusters, most of those deaths coincided with a rope around the neck...
I make no claims as to the ultimate reasons for this- statistical fluke, act of god, or a Rumsfeld/Poindexter led intelligence network. However, such a network does, in fact, exist.
Additionally, there is ample evidence the legitimate agencies of our government that normally take care of intelligence don't appreciate the partisan warmongering of men bent on empire.
Please do not close your eyes- or when you finally must open them, you may not be able to stop what you see happening.
Again, apologies to you mainline Lieberman or Gephardt folks that are apalled by all this.
Please rememember, we are, too.
Dear loudmouths:
The fact that you still can post your swill demonstrates conclusively that this site is nothign like the cesspool that is freerepublic.com
Now get your stinking ass back there.
Kelly b -
In the 50's and 60's, though, as you said, most of the deaths involved a rope around the neck - there was more than just occupation to connect the cases, there was also location, method of death, and a very clear, very vocal, faction that let it be known that civil rights workers were endangered. There wasn't much question of a pattern there.
What I was specifically referring to was that about 2 weeks ago, IIRC 2 civil rights pioneers died and then last week a third one died. (It's possible that it may have been 2 civil rights pioneers and 2 civil rights opponants, it's been a bit since I read the articles - but within the last months, 4 people who were involved in the civil rights movements have died.) It was a small cluster of deaths with nothing but age and having been involved in the civil rights movement to connect them, yet someone could, if they wanted to, see it as the start of a pattern.
With the scientists, we're talking about a large group of people, over a wide ranging area (including Russia, England Australia and the US), with dissimilar causes of death (stroke, murder/suicide by a microbiologist colleague, car accidents, slip-and-fall, stabbing by sword, head-bashing, plane crash and a couple others, IIRC), some of which have had trials conducted, culprits found guilty and guilty pleas made. (Robert Schwartz's death, for example, was committed by three friends of his 20-year-old daughter whom she had convinced to help her. 2 pled guilty and she was convincted in a trial.) The only real connection is that they happened to work in similar fields. Additionally, the main list covers people who died over a five-month period, but two additional deaths listed in the comments above occured over a year later than the last one of the "main" series. So while the first group did occur during a fairly short period of time, but it takes a bit of a stretch to say that the more recent ones are also connected in that time period.
Hello!All information website news!
travel health vaccinations |
protective life insurance |
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
