3 ms·

The motive for his poisoning is unknown. Some people speculate it was suicide brought on by his indecency conviction, but this isn't anywhere near as certain a

The motive for his poisoning is unknown. Some people speculate it was suicide brought on by his indecency conviction, but this isn't anywhere near as certain as its often presented, and there's at least as strong an argument it was simply an accident. "Died by poisoning", on the other hand, is certainly true.

retsibsi 7y ago
> there's at least as strong an argument it was simply an accident I don't mean this in a passive-aggressive way, but can you link me to any good sources on this? The most authoritative-seeming ones I've read lean pretty heavily on the side of suicide, with the alternative case presented mostly as wishful thinking on the part of his grieving mother. edit: the particular source I had in mind was the Hodges biography; other sources may have largely been relying on Hodges. And to partially answer my own question, an NYRB article[0] points me to a newer biography[1] which is apparently much more open to the possibility of accidental death (or even murder, though more in a 'can't rule it out' sort of way)[2]. [0] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/12/19/poor-imitation-alan-turing/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/12/19/poor-imitation-alan... [1] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/turing-9780198719182?cc=au&lang=en& https://global.oup.com/academic/product/turing-9780198719182... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092
- simplicio 7y ago
  I got it from Hodges book ("Alan Turning: The Enigma"). Hodges actually comes to the opposite conclusion, that Turing's death was likely a suicide. But he does a fair enough presentation of both sides of the issue that I walked away thinking an accident was most likely. To be clear, there's no definitive evidence either way. Reasonable people can differ in which version they find more plausible. But I think the extent to which a lot of people tell it as certainly being a suicide (and certainly being due to anger over his unjust conviction, he could've committed suicide for unrelated reasons!) is distorting the issue.
  - retsibsi 7y ago
    Fair enough -- and I think I had my own similar doubts when reading, but ultimately deferred to Hodges' authority and assumed he was quite likely to be correct. I'm interested to look at the Copeland biography now (see my edit, which might not have been up when you began to respond) -- presumably he found no new hard evidence, but he did conduct his own interviews with people who knew Turing.
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    Jack Copeland is another who argues against suicide: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18561092 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18561092 But that being said, the coroner’s inquest at the time ruled it a suicide. So we can speculate that they got it wrong, and we can suggest that today we may or may not come to a different conclusion, e.g. “Death by Misadventure”. But until someone gets that ruling overturned, it seems to me that the appropriate way to describe his death in a journalistic context is to either say nothing (Died in 1954), go along with the official verdict (Committed suicide in 1954), or mention the official verdict and that there are some dissenting views (Died in 1954 by what was ruled a suicide at the time, however some historians now question the finding.) I feel it’s inappropriate to say “poisoned,” while saying nothing about the ruling at the time, which has not yet been conclusively overturned. I find the arguments against suicide reasonable, but it’s not like anyone has a conclusive bit of hard evidence that it wasn’t suicide. So it seem to me that if the manner of his death is to be mentioned, the official verdict should be mentioned.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      > So we can speculate that they got it wrong, and we can suggest that today we may or may not come to a different conclusion, e.g. “Death by Misadventure”. At the time suicide in England was a crime and coroners needed to prove that the deceased i) did something to end their life and ii) had the intention of ending their life, and they needed to prove that to the criminal standard, ie "beyond all reasonable doubt". Suicide stopped being a crime in England in 1961. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/9-10/60 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/9-10/60 The burden of proof changed from "beyond all reasonable doubt" to "balance of probabilities" after the Maughan cases in 2018/2019. Maughan case appeal: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/1955.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/1955.html Maughan case next appeal: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/809.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/809.html It would be easier, not harder, for a coroner today to come to a conclusion of suicide. [from the BBC article] >Prof Copeland emphasises, a coroner these days would demand evidence of pre-meditation before announcing a verdict of suicide, I'm not sure that's true. Evidence of pre-meditation makes a conclusion of suicide easier, but it isn't required. There are a lot of misconceptions about suicide, especially about how suicidal people behave. These examples from the BBC article are the kinds of things that seem important but which actually aren't: > In statements to the coroner, friends had attested to his good humour in the days before his death. > His neighbour described him throwing "such a jolly [tea] party" for her and her son four days before he died. The paradox of good mood before self-inflicted death has a few possible explanations. Imagine a person in severe emotional distress. They can't see any way out, and they can't see how their future will work. They decide on a plan to end their life. For that person, at that moment, this is a solution to their problems. They now have something to work towards; they now have a way out. There are people who dispute Prof Copeland's comments. From what I've read of Copeland's comments he doesn't understand suicidality; he got some facts about the case wrong; and he doesn't understand coroners. I find this response more persuasive: https://www.turingfilm.com/turing-suicide https://www.turingfilm.com/turing-suicide

retsibsi 7y ago

> there's at least as strong an argument it was simply an accident I don't mean this in a passive-aggressive way, but can you link me to any good sources on this? The most authoritative-seeming ones I've read lean pretty heavily on the side of suicide, with the alternative case presented mostly as wishful thinking on the part of his grieving mother. edit: the particular source I had in mind was the Hodges biography; other sources may have largely been relying on Hodges. And to partially answer my own question, an NYRB article[0] points me to a newer biography[1] which is apparently much more open to the possibility of accidental death (or even murder, though more in a 'can't rule it out' sort of way)[2]. [0] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/12/19/poor-imitation-alan-turing/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/12/19/poor-imitation-alan... [1] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/turing-9780198719182?cc=au&lang=en& https://global.oup.com/academic/product/turing-9780198719182... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092

simplicio 7y ago
I got it from Hodges book ("Alan Turning: The Enigma"). Hodges actually comes to the opposite conclusion, that Turing's death was likely a suicide. But he does a fair enough presentation of both sides of the issue that I walked away thinking an accident was most likely. To be clear, there's no definitive evidence either way. Reasonable people can differ in which version they find more plausible. But I think the extent to which a lot of people tell it as certainly being a suicide (and certainly being due to anger over his unjust conviction, he could've committed suicide for unrelated reasons!) is distorting the issue.
- retsibsi 7y ago
  Fair enough -- and I think I had my own similar doubts when reading, but ultimately deferred to Hodges' authority and assumed he was quite likely to be correct. I'm interested to look at the Copeland biography now (see my edit, which might not have been up when you began to respond) -- presumably he found no new hard evidence, but he did conduct his own interviews with people who knew Turing.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  Jack Copeland is another who argues against suicide: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18561092 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18561092 But that being said, the coroner’s inquest at the time ruled it a suicide. So we can speculate that they got it wrong, and we can suggest that today we may or may not come to a different conclusion, e.g. “Death by Misadventure”. But until someone gets that ruling overturned, it seems to me that the appropriate way to describe his death in a journalistic context is to either say nothing (Died in 1954), go along with the official verdict (Committed suicide in 1954), or mention the official verdict and that there are some dissenting views (Died in 1954 by what was ruled a suicide at the time, however some historians now question the finding.) I feel it’s inappropriate to say “poisoned,” while saying nothing about the ruling at the time, which has not yet been conclusively overturned. I find the arguments against suicide reasonable, but it’s not like anyone has a conclusive bit of hard evidence that it wasn’t suicide. So it seem to me that if the manner of his death is to be mentioned, the official verdict should be mentioned.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    > So we can speculate that they got it wrong, and we can suggest that today we may or may not come to a different conclusion, e.g. “Death by Misadventure”. At the time suicide in England was a crime and coroners needed to prove that the deceased i) did something to end their life and ii) had the intention of ending their life, and they needed to prove that to the criminal standard, ie "beyond all reasonable doubt". Suicide stopped being a crime in England in 1961. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/9-10/60 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/9-10/60 The burden of proof changed from "beyond all reasonable doubt" to "balance of probabilities" after the Maughan cases in 2018/2019. Maughan case appeal: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/1955.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/1955.html Maughan case next appeal: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/809.html https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/809.html It would be easier, not harder, for a coroner today to come to a conclusion of suicide. [from the BBC article] >Prof Copeland emphasises, a coroner these days would demand evidence of pre-meditation before announcing a verdict of suicide, I'm not sure that's true. Evidence of pre-meditation makes a conclusion of suicide easier, but it isn't required. There are a lot of misconceptions about suicide, especially about how suicidal people behave. These examples from the BBC article are the kinds of things that seem important but which actually aren't: > In statements to the coroner, friends had attested to his good humour in the days before his death. > His neighbour described him throwing "such a jolly [tea] party" for her and her son four days before he died. The paradox of good mood before self-inflicted death has a few possible explanations. Imagine a person in severe emotional distress. They can't see any way out, and they can't see how their future will work. They decide on a plan to end their life. For that person, at that moment, this is a solution to their problems. They now have something to work towards; they now have a way out. There are people who dispute Prof Copeland's comments. From what I've read of Copeland's comments he doesn't understand suicidality; he got some facts about the case wrong; and he doesn't understand coroners. I find this response more persuasive: https://www.turingfilm.com/turing-suicide https://www.turingfilm.com/turing-suicide