18 Jul 2011

Don’t Mess With Murdoch

Big Brother, Conspiracy 11 Comments

The Guardian reports that News of the World whistleblower Sean Hoare has been found dead in his home. (HT2 EPJ) Check out this comment, which I can explain and find suspicious:

Hertfordshire police would not confirm his identity, but the force said in a statement: “At 10.40am today [Monday 18 July] police were called to Langley Road, Watford, following the concerns for the welfare of a man who lives at an address on the street. Upon police and ambulance arrival at a property, the body of a man was found. The man was pronounced dead at the scene shortly after.

“The death is currently being treated as unexplained but not thought to be suspicious. Police investigations into this incident are ongoing.”

Of course, what the spokesperson means is, “We haven’t yet ascertained the exact cause of death, but we have no reason to think this is a homicide.”

Even so, isn’t the statement odd? By definition, if you don’t know why somebody is dead–let alone somebody who just screwed over some of the world’s most powerful people–then isn’t his death suspicious?

Could it go the other way? Could you have a suspicious death that was explained? I don’t think so. We can explain exactly how Lee Harvey Oswald died, and that’s why there’s nothing suspicious about it.

11 Responses to “Don’t Mess With Murdoch”

  1. Taylor says:

    Maybe I’ve seen too many dystopian movies but it’d be “funny” if the person who called in, concerned for his welfare, was actually signaling for a corrupt assassin squad within the paramedics and police who first responded to go in, take the guy out and then make sure that whoever showed up afterward wasn’t left with any “suspicious” clues or ideas about his death.

    Dang, I hate when whistleblowers just happen to die after blowing the whistle. It’s weird how their internal psychological struggles and plain old bad luck always happen to finally catch up to them after they’ve made someone powerful extremely uncomfortable.

  2. Dan says:

    That was my comment to people at work today. If you take out the fact he pissed off some of the most powerful people on the planet and then was found dead shortly after that with no explanation, then it is not suspicious at all. It’s kind of like the DC Madam predicting she would be suicided shortly before she committed suicide.

    • Em_ptySkin says:

      my first thought as well. The DC madame could have brought down the 9/11 commission.

      This is crazy. The establishment is out of control.

  3. Joseph Fetz says:

    Um, wouldn’t it make sense for ANY and ALL deaths to be suspicious until the cause of death is found? I mean, people don’t just up and die without cause. If I were to die tomorrow, I would hope that people would find that quite suspicious. I will make a prediction that they will rule that he died of a heart attack. Whenever there is a person who others would most assuredly want dead, they always go one or three routes: accident, suicide, or heart attack.

  4. Beefcake the Mighty says:
  5. Cody says:

    So, this guy was fired for drug and alcohol problems from the paper he blew the whistle on. That in itself might seem suspiscious.

    Except, of course, he was fired for those problems five years before he started blowing his whistle.

    It is one thing to call in the coppers on something going on where you work; another thing entirely to be a scumbag yourself for years and then hit bottom, lose your job and start lashing out at the people you used to be fellow scumbags with.

    Yeah, this guy was a real hero. ” …Hoare reminisced about his partying with former pop stars and said that he missed the days when he was able to go out on the town…”

    By all means, let’s turn him into a martyr.

    I’m sure Murdoch cares so much about this that he had a sad, substance-abusing ex-almost-somebody murdered. After he had talked to the cops. Because that accomplishes a lot, with no blow-back at all.

    • bobmurphy says:

      Ah yes, the famous, “I don’t believe they would do such a thing, because they couldn’t get away with it.” And hence, if they did in fact do it, they get away with it.

      You’re saying it accomplishes nothing. You don’t think that might have a chilling effect on people who were considering going public with their own info?

  6. Beefcake the Mighty says:

    Has anyone succeeded in finding Eichmann’s captured Soviet sub?

  7. Cody says:

    I most certainly did not say it accomplishes nothing. There is generally acknowledged to be a space between “nothing” and “a lot”. I believe anywhere in that space would do, given my statement and the sarcasm present therein.

    If you were a billionaire with a world-spanning media empire, and you had already closed the News of the World, and the fellow had already given his evidence to the police, would you entertain the notion of trying to have him killed? Is that the best you could do against a washed-up drunk of a has-been pop column guy?

    It’s about horses and stable-doors and more importantly PR and subtlety.

    It just didn’t happen. Murdoch is ten times as devious as you give him credit for. This would be sloppy for upstart mafia work.

    • bobmurphy says:

      Your position is fine, but it’s annoying that you keep ignoring the obvious response. Yes, you’ve got billions and a world-spanning media empire. So you make sure people realize, when they cross you, they die. You don’t think that might be a useful lesson to people?

      And you’re saying I’m naive for not realizing Murdoch is devious enough to…not bother somebody who screwed him over?

      • bobmurphy says:

        And what is this, “It just didn’t happen”? I’m surprised you had the time to fly over there and perform an autopsy.