Anomalies in the Jacintha Saldanha tragedy

It’s very difficult to steer a path down the middle.

One thing I give short shrift to is people coming in with the old chestnuts, the old cliches: “I don’t do conspiracy theories”, “moonbattery” and so on without providing a shred of evidence for such statements.

Doesn’t matter how verified are the sources in their minds – they don’t think that far, doesn’t matter how much work has gone into ensuring everything holds together – in come the idiots with their airy and unsubstantiated dismissals.

On the other hand, I read a few pieces on the French Revolution last evening ascribing words to Mirabeau which were not his at all but those of pamphleteers at the time who appended pages to Mirabeau’s papers.

Now the carelessness with which the modern writers had handled their sources also raised my hackles, if only because it hands ammunition to those wishing to implement Leveson.

Trusted sources are a very difficult thing which sometimes quadruples the time required for a piece of research. Refraining from joining dots unless there is stated evidence to do so is also an issue, not to mention de rigeur.

So to the Jacintha Saldanha tragedy.   Seems to me that what we have got is this:

1 The family say she was not in the least suicidal, she was strong as a person and there’s no way she would have hung herself, that they had talked many times since the hoax and it was only a minor thing among all the other things discussed.

2 Kate is having ongoing trouble with William’s child, just as Diana had trouble with William.

3 Jacintha Saldanha is now dead.

4 Diana died in a car crash.

5 The result of the vilification [quite rightly in my book] of those two presenters has been [quite wrongly in my book] to strengthen Leveson recommendations. Cameron’s mob is already drawing up legislation.

I’m not joining 3-5 in any way. I am however wondering about the hanging of Jacintha Saldanha. If she didn’t do it, then who did? And for what reason?

One thought – and only that – which briefly flashed through the mind was whether Mrs. Saldanha discovered something.

I can’t buy that she’d be killed to aid Leveson legislation but if she was – then what does that say about the gloves-off we’re seeing lately among the world gangsters here and across the pond?

However, if she discovered something she shouldn’t have, then there is every reason. I’d like to know, for example, how close Ms Saldanha got to the scans and the tests? And what if she was, as the family says, most adept and assiduous in her job?

I’m glancing again at N2 above.

And that’s as far as we can go.  By the way, I’m a bit rusty on the cases but didn’t David Kelly also suicide and Gary Webb?

Mary Mahoney? Vincent Foster? Jerry Parks? Kathy Ferguson and Bill Shelton? Suzanne Coleman? Paul Wilcher? Kenny Johannemann?

7 comments for “Anomalies in the Jacintha Saldanha tragedy

  1. December 13, 2012 at 08:47

    Re No 2, I query your use of the word ‘trouble’; while potentially hazardous because of the risk of dehydration, hyperemesis gravidarum is a common enough problem. Unless it continues for more than a few weeks, most sufferers are left to get on with it at home – or at least they were when I had it – and the brevity of the Duchess’ hospital stay suggests it was merely a precaution.

    FTR, advised by a wise and experienced midwife, I survived the worst of it on sips of warm water and honey and – very occasionally – a few small pieces of Matzo; not a balanced diet, it’s true, but just enough to keep me from needing a drip.

    It’s linked to a rapid increase in hormones and I was told it’s a good sign – the foetus has established itself well and quickly. Anecdotal evidence here and in the US often links it to a RH- mother and a Rh+ father and child (as in my case and several others I know), though a Nigerian study found nothing to support the theory.

    Or are you suggesting that wasn’t what was wrong at all?

  2. December 13, 2012 at 10:58

    Thing is that I’d rather not suggest anything more as I simply don’t know. I’ve done much reading on Wills and some of the things about him and his antecedents are probably best left unsaid.

    If even part of that was so, then one can imagine a very difficult pregnancy. As you say, if it just goes normally from now on, then that’s that.

    With Jacintha though, there’s something definitely wrong there. Were the family just covering up for her for the honour of the family and for the children – quite understandable – or was there a deep secret inside the family – or was there something else re the royals.

    Did she notice some anomaly? I mean, what are we to think when the family says one thing and the official line says something completely different?

    Without reading any more into it than that – how is that reconciled?

  3. JD
    December 13, 2012 at 14:28

    re N1:- The family of Gary Speed said more or less the same after he hanged himself.
    It is impossible to know what is inside a person’s mind, no matter how well you know them.

    I am curious to know why the press and others are not asking about the other nurse, the one who actually gave out the information.

    But, there again, this cartoon perfectly sums up the mentality of journalists-

    Nigel Keith Anthony Standish Vaz ,MP really ought to shut up instead of pretending to be concerned for Jacintha Saldanha’s family.
    If he really wants to act in their best interests he should not be parading them in front of the media.

  4. December 14, 2012 at 00:48

    Are you suggesting or hinting that Jacintha Saldanha was Dr Kelly’d?
    If so, perhaps that is why tour site went down this evening.

  5. james wilson
    December 14, 2012 at 06:05

    As little as is still known–publicly–it is fairly obvious now that the shock jocks had nothing to do with her death. Nothing.

    Assuming she was a suicide, the common cause (absent clinical depression) is despair. The Aussies don’t rate highly enough to cause despair. Love does, and betrayal. That could run in two entirely different directions.

    Who or what is Leveson?

    Everybody wanted to run this as a morality play. It ain’t. Not that one, anyway.

  6. james wilson
    December 14, 2012 at 06:34

    OK, found the links.

    Just reading the Leveson report recommendations is enough to warn me off…”recommends a new independent body, which would have a range of sanctions available to it, including fines and direction of the prominence of apologies and corrections.” Fox, hen house. Western democratic governments are incurably intellectually corrupt. Which describes the media as well, with very few exceptions. The press has been a full member of the ruling class for approximately eighty years. When we ask one to regulate the other I hope there is at least laughter at the higher levels of understanding within them.

    A more productive attitude by which to discover truths is to regard all government and media persons as despicable and lacking in standards, separated only by degree and circumstance. The honest ones will object the least.

  7. December 14, 2012 at 17:56

    Banned – no, stopping short of claiming anything but keeping it in the back of the mind.

    Just got to this, James. Glad you found it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *