4 ms·

I consider Kangas the first internet-age reporter to die under suspicious circumstances. I won't busy up the thread with links but I urge anyone with an interes

by ferdo 13y ago

I consider Kangas the first internet-age reporter to die under suspicious circumstances. I won't busy up the thread with links but I urge anyone with an interest in this topic to research Kangas and his writings. He imparted much information in his short career.

anigbrowl 13y ago
I have a strong dislike of Richard Mellon Scaife and his influence on politics. But if I were a wicked billionaire who wished a bad end on a troublesome gadfly, why would I have that person assassinated in the bathroom outside my office, as opposed to knocked out, smuggled out via the freight elevator, and done to death in some deserted spot? If the goal is to demonstrate impunity of some sort, why not just have him thrown off the roof of the building? Here, we have to posit a conspiracy powerful and cold-blooded enough to commit and cover up murder, but which is too inept to to put any significant distance between (presumed) co-conspirator and victim. I think we need to give equal consideration to the possibility of it being a 'doorstep suicide,' where a troubled person ends their life in proximity and as a reproach to a perceived antagonist, if only because of Occam's Razor.
- ferdo 13y ago
  Or what better way to consign someone to obscurity by engineering a "how pathetic... he was so obsessed with Scaife that he killed himself in one of his properties in the men's room" moment. Occam's Razor cuts both ways when dealing with neurotic geeks or with megalomaniac billionaires.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    No, I don't think it does. If I want to kill someone and consign them to obscurity as well, I'd do it in a way that didn't maximize the potential for gossip involving a famous person. For example, staging the suicide somewhere else and just scattering blackmail-type evidence around, like some particularly skeevy kind of porn which would reflect badly on the victim. I mean, if you're going to go down that route why not stage the suicide in the lobby or even the inner sanctum of the putative megalomaniac's office, which would be even more dramatic and damning? The obvious answer is 'because that would be suspicious,' which invites the rejoinder 'and doing it 25 feet down the corridor isn't?' If you have a wicked plan to destroy someone's reputation, you might as well pick the least ambiguous way of doing it.

by ferdo 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago

I have a strong dislike of Richard Mellon Scaife and his influence on politics. But if I were a wicked billionaire who wished a bad end on a troublesome gadfly, why would I have that person assassinated in the bathroom outside my office, as opposed to knocked out, smuggled out via the freight elevator, and done to death in some deserted spot? If the goal is to demonstrate impunity of some sort, why not just have him thrown off the roof of the building? Here, we have to posit a conspiracy powerful and cold-blooded enough to commit and cover up murder, but which is too inept to to put any significant distance between (presumed) co-conspirator and victim. I think we need to give equal consideration to the possibility of it being a 'doorstep suicide,' where a troubled person ends their life in proximity and as a reproach to a perceived antagonist, if only because of Occam's Razor.

ferdo 13y ago
Or what better way to consign someone to obscurity by engineering a "how pathetic... he was so obsessed with Scaife that he killed himself in one of his properties in the men's room" moment. Occam's Razor cuts both ways when dealing with neurotic geeks or with megalomaniac billionaires.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  No, I don't think it does. If I want to kill someone and consign them to obscurity as well, I'd do it in a way that didn't maximize the potential for gossip involving a famous person. For example, staging the suicide somewhere else and just scattering blackmail-type evidence around, like some particularly skeevy kind of porn which would reflect badly on the victim. I mean, if you're going to go down that route why not stage the suicide in the lobby or even the inner sanctum of the putative megalomaniac's office, which would be even more dramatic and damning? The obvious answer is 'because that would be suspicious,' which invites the rejoinder 'and doing it 25 feet down the corridor isn't?' If you have a wicked plan to destroy someone's reputation, you might as well pick the least ambiguous way of doing it.