He also took a large overdose of Co-proxamol, which was capable of killing him by itself (his blood concentration of dextropropoxyphene was at the low end of those who have committed suicide using Co-proxamol).
from Nicholas Hunt's post mortum report http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly_(weapons_expert)
"It is my opinion that the main factor involved in bringing about the death of David Kelly is the bleeding from the incised wounds to his left wrist. Had this not occurred he may well not have died at this time. Furthermore, on the balance of probabilities, it is likely that the ingestion of an excess number of co-proxamol tablets coupled with apparently clinically silent coronary artery disease would both have played a part in bringing about death more certainly and more rapidly than would have otherwise been the case. Therefore I give as the cause of death: 1a. Haemorrhage; 1b. Incised wounds to the left wrist; 2. Co-proxamol ingestion and coronary artery atherosclerosis."]]>
He had already revealed what he knew about flaws in the dossier. And he showed signs of extreme stress when questioned by a House of Commons committee. He had been placed in an extremely stressful situation by the actions of himself and others and he couldn't cope.
The conspiracy theorists have no plausible mechanism for it to not be self inflicted. The suggested methods are of baroque and unbelievable complexity. While the suicide theory is both straightforward and consistent with the known facts. He went out into the woods took a potentially fatal overdose of co-proxamol and severed a large artery in his wrist. His age the nature of the wound and his undiagnosed heart condition made him more prone to bleed and he died. Given the unreliable method chosen he may not actually have intended for the attempt to succeed, it might have been a cry for help (that was the reasoning apparently applied by the coroner in recording an open verdict at my Grandmother's inquest after she drowned).
If the conspiracy theorists are right he was abducted while walking forced to take pills and had his wrist slit in such a way as it looked self inflicted, then there is a problem with the less than certain method used. If you were murdering someone and wanted it to look like suicide you would make damn sure they couldn't survive to expose you. You would first use a dose of drugs certain to kill rather than at the bottom end of the potentially lethal range 60 or so rather than 29. Secondly you wouldn't use a somewhat half hearted wound which would probably have been survivable but for his undiagnosed heart condition, which you can't possibly know about. You'd slit both wrists thoroughly and maybe the throat as well just to make sure.
]]>Remember there were absolutely huge amounts of money at stake, as well!
]]>All of these false conspiracy theories display the same sort of patten a baroque complexity compared to the banality of the official explanation. A few examples:
Princess Diana: Drunk Chauffeur speeding through tunnel while pursued by paparazzi crashes. The only person in the car wearing a seatbelt survives. The only way that could have been staged was by the driver deliberately killing himself, and even then if she had been wearing a seatbelt she would almost certainly have lived. As it is she was mortally injured and died shortly afterwards, a bit of luck and the injuries might not have been fatal.
Marilyn Monroe: Depressive drug addict with history of near fatal overdoses (she had one two weeks earlier only the fact that she had left the phone line open and the hotel receptionist heard her laboured breathing and got help saved her life) has fatal overdose.
JFK: The wounds caused by bullet two shows that it was following a trajectory that means it can only have been fired from a small area of the book depository, Oswald was at the window more or less exactly in the middle of that area. Basically only Oswald can have been the gunman and Oswald was a murderous flake no one in their right mind would involve in a conspiracy.
]]>Some problems with the conspiracy theories.
If the drugs and wound didn't kill him what did?
Why would the murderers use a method which could be survived, they can hardly afford to risk him surviving to tell the police?
]]>Patterns of usage can be very useful. If you identify one person involved in organised crime or terrorism you can then use the records to identify their acquaintances in a bid to wrap up a criminal network. For this knowing the addresses with which they regularly corresponded and identifying the owners is very useful. The information isn't useful for locating entirely unknown threats, it is useful once you have a suspect.
]]>That's a direct assumption that the child in question must have sent the specific message in question from a specific street address which need not have been the case.
Everything else you say is correct (at least for values of correct referring to establishing that X regularly communicates with Y rather than establishing the locations they are at when they do so).
]]>Email addresses often are associated with a specific physical address. While the email account is accessible remotely home is still the most likely single location. If you are accessing the internet through your broadband account (ADSL, Cable, FTTC &c.) you have to be at a specific location.
]]>