Originally posted by Painterz
The part I find particularly suspicious is that the police declared the death to be 'not suspicious' before the cause of death was even known.
How did the police know to call it not suspicious, without anybody even knowing how the poor guy died...
They didn't say it definitely wasn't suspicious -- they said they were not treating it as such, meaning that it appeared, from an initial
examination, that he had not been murdered. They can switch it to Suspicious if anything turns up on the autopsy.
But...
Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Painterz
See thats the thing.....I know for a fact that Scotland Yard and NZ Police treat all home deaths as suspecious until proven otherwise by the coroner.
Now that coroner's report was real instant.
That's interesting. Do you have a source for that? I'm not doubting you, I just want to know for sure it's not hearsay. (On the other hand, the
story was posted at 6PM England time; The police found the body a bit before 11 AM, and left the scene around 3 PM. They may have had enough time for
an initial report?)
Originally posted by mr-lizard
www.dailymail.co.uk...
Daily Mail are saying it's possible suicide.
Interesting development
We need a better way to put that. They aren't saying it is possible suicide; they're saying suicide has not been ruled out. The two have very
different connotations.
Originally posted by th3dudeabides
Time to indict Rupert Murdoch on suspicion of involvement in murder.
We can't do that. As much as we all would like for it to happen, and know it's probably right and true -- there is not yet any proof that he's
tied to the death, or that the death was even murder. And a world that does not run on proof is not one that I would like to live in.
Originally posted by TrueBrit
My thoughts on this are as follows. FIrst of all , its incredibly rare for a death to be truely unexplainable.
Not called "Unexplainable". Called "unexplained." Means they did not see the answer right away, are waiting for autopsy. Simple, simple
concept.
---
I'd like to point out that the allegations of drink and drug are NOT new, and were ostensibly the reason he was fired
six years ago. This
neither discredits him nor those reporting on it. Unless he died of an overdose or jaundice -- some of the reports linked say that he was looking
yellow -- it's pretty much irrelevant.
I say again: This is an alarming case. But we still don't know how he died, we only know that he did. We know that he died at a time when it may or
may not be beneficial to the major people who would want him dead, but we also know that, if it can't be traced back to them, it won't harm them.
All we can go on are these facts. Even previous "trends" of one, like Dr. David Kelly, cannot be used in any significant way to suggest that this is
the same thing.
I think that, in all likelihood, he was murdered to be silenced. but there is no proof of that, and my supposition of that does not in turn prove
anything.
Calm down and engage your rational minds, my friends. If you don't, we've already lost any infowar that may be starting.