I always figured it was more along the lines of 1. He committed a legitimate (by their laws) offense and was punished. The claimed offense (I think it was ste

I always figured it was more along the lines of 1. He committed a legitimate (by their laws) offense and was punished. The claimed offense (I think it was stealing a regime poster) was the sort of thing where it should be obvious that they have (by our standards) disproportionate enforcement on. He knew he was teasing the bull by trying it. 2. At some point in captivity, he had an actual health emergency. This could have been inadvertently triggered by abuse or the conditions, or it could have legitimately been something like an infection or food poisoning. As I recall, the autopsy didn't show obvious signs of abuse. 3. The health crisis may have been handled improperly, due to limited health care resources or just bad luck, and he ends up in a coma. 4. They toss him back in that state in a clunky attempt to both score political points and avoid the far greater blowback if he died in the DPRK. There's very little for them to gain by having him die in their custody, and they aren't stupid about that fact. That makes me expect incompetence and bad luck more than outright malice.