News International whistleblower's death 'non-suspicious,' police say

News International whistleblower's death 'non-suspicious,' police say

edition.cnn.com

Investigators have found no sign of foul play in the death of a man identified as the whistleblower behind the scandal surrounding media mogul Rupert Murdoch's News International, British police announced Tuesday.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.guardian.co.uk
www.dailytech.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
News of the World phone hacking whistleblower found dead

It goes on to say that even though the death is unexplained, that it is totally not suspicious at all. He was a whisteblower in one of the most major cases of corruption in history, and he suddenly dies. Personally don't see how that's not suspicious, but maybe I'm just being paranoid (yeah, right).

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


Yeah, and I'll sell you some asteroid insurance, reallly cheap. you name your price. Police are silly.

Who are they going to go after?

Obviously Rupert didn't do it himself, and they'll be hard pressed to find out who ordered the hit and who carried it out.

Hell, Rupert might have not even known it was going to happen, and TPTB took him out as a threat to any other potential whistle blowers on even bigger stuff.

reply to post by Jeanius


With so many high profile people being dragged out into the open like this, my money's on that he was just about to spill the beans on just how deep the rabbit hole goes. We already know how wide it is, but how deep? That seems an entirely different arena.

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck


It goes on to say that even though the death is unexplained, that it is totally not suspicious at all. He was a whisteblower in one of the most major cases of corruption in history, and he suddenly dies. Personally don't see how that's not suspicious, but maybe I'm just being paranoid (yeah, right).

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I suspect that refers to the death, (how he died, how he was found), not the larger context surrounding him. Police owuld not speculate on something that broad in an ongoing case, at this point.

A 'suspicious' death would likely be being found underwater with a bag over your head tied to a chair. That is suspicious.

Obviously, to an observer, the context is VERY suspicious, I'm just saying I dint think those sorts of suspicions are taken into account for the definition currently being given. Semantics.

reply to post by Jeanius


Hits always come from the top. Though it would be hard to prove in court, doesn't merit your disbelief as it is entirely obvious who has the most to gain from the whistle blower being dead.

I am rubbing my temples here in an effort not to pull off the fabled x2 Facepalm Combo.

What they mean by unexplained is that they have not yet determined the actual cause of death. Unexplained does not mean Unexplainable. Please, let us keep that in mind. Consider adding that fact to the OP, to aid in constructive discourse.

What they mean by "non-suspicious" is that there is no evidence that it was a murder. There are no stab wounds, gunshot wounds, no sign of a struggle, and no evident sign that he was poisoned. Should one show up on the toxicology report, they will switch that around, turnways. It has little to do with the circumstances of his death.

The fact is that his death is suspicious when viewed in totality with his life and recent events. However, the fact that his death is convenient to a lot of people who hate him is not in itself legal evidence that it is "suspicious". It is a different usage of the term than we are accustomed to, not unlike "Theory" in the scientific sense.

Moreover, to say that it was suspicious without any evidence of a murder would probably be indirectly and incidentally libelous. To say it was suspicious would lead to MSM suggestions that Murdoch was responsible, and the whole thing would devolve into a dreadful quagmire.

Please, please, please, please, please, everyone keep the lynch mob mentality to a minimum. It makes us all look like fools. This is an important case and it's equally important to avoid leaping to conclusions. I think it's highly likely that he was offed, but it's also possible, plausible, and reasonably likely that he did die of natural causes at a very (in)convenient time.

Let's just wait patiently for Lulzsec to release the emails that they stole from News of the world.,.. im sure everything is going to be in there...

Even if the death is ruled suspicious, that won't change anything for Rupert Murdoch as it will never be linked to him... the story will be forgotten and anyone trying to challenge this will be called a conspiracy theorist.

Isn't it wonderful how life works out ?

reply to post by Solasis


Indeed...

Also, bear in mind this guy has had a severe drug problem for years and wasn't in the best of health...

It may appear to be convenient and I am sure for some it is, but it is most likely just a coincidence. Murdoch, being 80 odd years old, is also highly likely to croak in the near future. In fact, he may well have dropped dead in Parliament today. Now, that would be convenient for some, suspicious to others but would also just be a coincidence.

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck


ATS thread = www.abovetopsecret.com...

including (in OP)...

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

seeya

reply to post by Solasis


If anything, this highlights how people have been zOMG-ified by sensational media that runs with speculation instead of fact.

The irony here is that NewsCorp and specifically NoW both fed that sensation lust. If the NoW was still around, they would probably write a headline about it being 'suspicious'.

It is true that his death may be completely natural but, it is entirely convenient for News Corp. and the police that this man has died. I don't know what has happened to the man so it's best not to speculate.

I agree with Solasis.. don't jump to conclusions when the man's body was just found in the past hours.

But.. if it does turn out to conspiracy... it will be a forever dormant, never-surfacing issue to even pull Murdoch's name into the scandals.

A) He may really be a rich man with good intentions, not knowing anything at all of what a handful of his 52,000 employees were up to
B) He may really be a scumbag, taking the age of technology by brute force with hired hackers to pull out good front-page lines, and will get away with all of his freedom and most of his money.

Either way, in this case, with this cast of characters, we can point the finger, but we can't push it.

Wow, that was an incredibly quick "investigation".
This seems legit.

Knives are out for Murdoch! But what about the other players in this sorry mess? Why so little speculation about government involvement? What about Met corruption?

Does the fact that so much of the non News International MSM reporting is gleefully pointing the finger at Murdoch imply misdirection?

Does anyone here on this conspiracy site truly believe that only News International have access to police and government collusion in illegal phone hacking?

Did former NoTW reporters petition their contacts in the police and government to ensure protection or sanction under loopholes in the RIPA laws?

I think other 'players' have more to gain from the death of the prime whistleblower and I think the rabbit hole goes as deep as the both the current unelected government's involvement and that of the two previous Labour administrations.

Sometimes these things happen at the wrong time & this maybe one of those.
The guy could have died from nothing suspicious & died of natural causes just at the wrong time,if somebody high-up had him killed there would be a trace of something surely.
Would the police reveal to the public if there was a chance he was murdered or keep it secret untill they are sure ?

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck


It goes on to say that even though the death is unexplained, that it is totally not suspicious at all. He was a whisteblower in one of the most major cases of corruption in history, and he suddenly dies. Personally don't see how that's not suspicious, but maybe I'm just being paranoid (yeah, right).

edition.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

This reminds me of the scene from the film "Michael Clayton", where they kill the one lawyer who caused the big problem for the corporate merger.. Very detailed as to how realistic a murder can be made to look like natural or accidental...

YouTube Link...

reply to post by teapot


That's a good point. A couple people mentioned it in the other thread, but it was largely ignored -- It shouldn't be.

If this is a murder, what exactly did Murdoch stand to gain? Nothing very clear -- the evidence was already presented and his empire is already crumbling. Revenge seems pretty petty for a crime that could land him in some real hot water. The benefits seem to outweigh the risks -- for Murdoch.

It could have been someone else who had him killed; for fear of further evidence that would harm them, while they currently weren't in very hot water.

And this is a prime reason I am so opposed to just stringing the guys up; we just don't know who did it (or even if it was done) yet.

reply to post by Solasis


So they can't find a natural reason why he'd be dead, and there's a lot of people with a good motive for murder, but that's not suspicious at all. Um...if you say so?