It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
...What, besides a note, would it take to "Validate" the possibility of suicide?
...
Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
...Ya know how skeptical I am. .. .. I would call that somewhat coincedental and Highly Suspect.
...If we go back a couple of months we will find that we both mention suicide as a possibility.
...Though I have continually rulled that OUT.
...Why?,. . . because of No Note. . and. .. . Complete Reckless Disregard.
Originally posted by raymundoko
...So my earlier supposition about murder should actually be:
...No evidence of suicide.
No evidence of NOT suicide.
Therefore, suicide.
ShadellacZumbrum
I am just curious though. .. Exactly what constitutes "Small Amounts"?
Does That mean that it was Small enough that it didn't kill him, OR, that he had not ingested any over the period of a few days?
Still allot of Unanswered Questions. .. But still NO Proof of Murder.
some "three-letter agencies" focus on finding &/or developing your "soft spots"...then...exploit them. 14 years off... 1 month back on... That is interesting.
Originally posted by MindBodySpiritComplex
...I am a bit puzzled how most people seem to accept the comments made by family members so easily. Personally I shudder to think what kind of nonsense some of my own family would spout about me under similar circumstances - they just don't know me well enough. Additionally Hastings had plenty of reasons to keep them out of the loop - partly for their own safety, partly to protect his sources and the stories he was working on. Plus the media will quote only the most sensational or most "desired" parts out of context.
The fact that posters are defending the accident scenario
'They' wanted him gone - he is gone!
( in the Micheal Krikorian article) I don't know how many people at the Palo Alto foundation have actually used dimethyl** but the sentence suggests they haven't....
Thıs drug, known as 'busınessman's trıp' or 'fantasıa', can cause 'ımpaıred judgement that often leads to rash decısıons and accıdents' accordıng to the Palo Alto Medıcal Foundatıon.
while the coroner concluding that they weren't significant in the cause of accident is misleading, as are those posters here saying "told you so"!
Journalist Michael Hastings, who was killed in a Los Angeles car crash in June, died of “traumatic injuries” as a result of the accident and had traces of drugs in his system, Los Angeles coroner’s officials said Tuesday.
Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by bowaconstricta
Did you by any chance note that the samples for the toxicology were taken exactly 2 days after his death? Do you realize that the drugs had time to clear out of his system before they took the samples? Do you know that Dimethyltryptamine only stays in your system 2-4 days?
Originally posted by bowaconstricta
...The detection of Amphetamine is miniscule and can be attributed to his prescription for Adderall (as co-founder of LA Times states in comment under article. To see people assume he was on a Meth-binge is sad to me. If this had been the case I would expect the coroner to describe traces of discolouration on his fingers of uncharred hand (?, Or am I confusing Meth with Crack smoking?)
As for the "medical" Marijuana, it is unlikely to be as strong as skunk which can trigger psychosis in some individuals. Nonetheless it would strengthen feelings of paranoia. But as it was only detected in metabolite form unlikely to have affected him at time of event.
...The reason his blood was tested for dimethyltr*** would be because a family member suggested he had used it "recently" , yet none was detected. ...
('___') a: it is not widely available, so Michael most likely had this in his posession for some time, or met someone in posession who had experience with dimethyl***.
b: It is not addictive, hardly a reason to stage an intervention for by family members (unless they were clueless about it's effects)
c: Actually smoking it is quite tricky and requires specialised paraphernalia. So he either had previous experience or there was an experienced user with him at the time to demonstrate/guide him on use.
d: It is known as the "spirit-molecule" because rather than a recreational/ego drug, and leaves one feeling "cleansed" and with clear thoughts afterwards. Whilst duration itself is short, it is impossible to move let alone stand up and get in a car.
e: Michael was an intelligent being who would likely have researched the effects beforehand and known that state of mind and setting are of uttermost importance. (so was there someone with him at the time? if so,who?)
If , however, it was his first experience with the drug and he was unprepared for its effects and by fluke managed to smoke it affectively it could well have scared the scrap out of him.... and may have caused his family/wife to become concerned.
One thing I am grateful for is the conclusion that he was instantly killed (before being engulfed in flames).