Phone hacking scandal whistleblower found dead

BobHaulk said:
You believe the Met? You sound perfect for the whitewash er i mean inquiry.
Click to expand...

The Met don't have jurisdiction over this and haven't made a statement about it. Getting that detail wrong doesn't fill me with confidence that you've really thought about this.

Deciding in advance that all ten inquiries will be a whitewash isn't exactly critical evidence-based thinking either.

BobHaulk said:
A rockstar's breakfast? Keith Richards still lives but then again he didn't expose the corruption deep at the heart of government,media and police.
Click to expand...

Do I really have to point out the obvious fallacies here? Or should I just mention Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Keith Moon?

Currently, we don't have a lot to go on - but if you're going to construct a plausible hypothesis for murder (to be tested against evidence, obviously) then wouldn't sometime after he first talked to the New York Times in September last year have been better timing? Before he had the chance to talk about "pinging" last week? Hasn't he, indeed, said most of what he would have said to an inquiry already?

On top of that, he wasn't the only person to talk to the Times back then they have testimony from Matt Driscoll, another former NoW reporter and from an unnamed journalist, as well as from police sources.

The idea there was some smoking gun that Sean Hoare had yet to reveal which required him to be murdered (without his writing it down or divulging it to, say Nick Davies) seems pretty far fetched. Given the way things have gone so far, what could possibly have justified such a risk on the part of the supposed conspirators. Who are they, anyway? News International? The Met? Both have a potential way back from this (possibly in straightened circumstances) - there's no way back from ordering a hit.
 
maccy said:
The idea there was some smoking gun that Sean Hoare had yet to reveal which required him to be murdered (without his writing it down or divulging it to, say Nick Davies) seems pretty far fetched. Given the way things have gone so far, what could possibly have justified such a risk on the part of the supposed conspirators. Who are they, anyway? News International? The Met? Both have a potential way back from this (possibly in straightened circumstances) - there's no way back from ordering a hit.
Click to expand...

{I do not think he was murdered...}

...but the idea you've come up with is indeed pretty far-fetched. Helps you sound authorative when you dismiss it as pretty far-fetched, I suppose. Other, more plausible reasons for a 'hit' include 'sending a warning to others who might reveal information' and 'punishment/revenge' (timing notwithstanding). People do get murdered, you know.

{Nevertheless, I don't think Sean Hoare was murdered}.
 
jiggeryqua said:
...but the idea you've come up with is indeed pretty far-fetched. Helps you sound authorative when you dismiss it as pretty far-fetched, I suppose. Other, more plausible reasons for a 'hit' include 'sending a warning to others who might reveal information' and 'punishment/revenge' (timing notwithstanding). People do get murdered, you know.
Click to expand...

Do you really think either of those are remotely plausible? Or worth the risk of being detected and prosecuted?

Interesting rhetoric to say that I deliberately picked a stupid reason for killing him to make myself look authoritative. Given that all we have is innuendo I had to guess at the reasoning behind it - and that was my guess. Honestly, the reasons you give are equally implausible (which is probably why you don't believe them).

In fact, all that has to be established for this to be a disaster for all concerned is that he was murdered - not even who did it. It takes a lot of confidence to assume that you can murder someone in their own home (with neighbours as potential witnesses) and be sure to make it look like suicide or death by natural causes.

People to get murdered - but that fact, on its own, doesn't make this a likely murder.
 
But David Kelly's body was found on the same day as Sean Hoare's (well, same day eight years apart). It must be some Masonic thing. July is the seventh month. 18 could be reversed and changed to 8-1 =7, so we end up with 7/7, of course! The 7/7 bombings! Who else died on 18th July? Wikipedia says Paul Foot did. Paul Foot was an investigative journalist who was born in Haifa! Haifa! Israel... I think this is the big key to 7/7 and Israel's involvement.

:hypnotize
 
BobHaulk said:
A rockstar's breakfast? Keith Richards still lives but then again he didn't expose the corruption deep at the heart of government,media and police.
Click to expand...


And carried a lot less body fat around. Perhaps Ronald McDonald offed him.
 
Thanks for the link catsmate1. It's a shame it's polarised into bad arguments from ridicule on one side and CT paranoia from the usual CTists on the other. I guess maybe these just aren't the forums for the kind of discussion I'd like to see of cases like this.
 
Wouldn't killing him now be kind of closing the door after the horse left the barn?
 
Donal said:
Wouldn't killing him now be kind of closing the door after the horse left the barn?
Click to expand...

Greedo said:
Not in the mind of a CTer ;). Since they live in fiction land anyhow... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Case in point: This is just a dumb argument.

For one it assumes that if Hoare was murdered, he was murdered by some kind of impeccably organised and all-powerful conspiracy that could see the future, knew exactly how this would all play out and could kill anyone they liked at any time.

I suspect what's going on here is that people have gotten so used to arguing against 9/11 MIHOPpers, whose arguments take such a conspiracy for granted, that they repeat their usual tactics out of reflex without reflecting on whether they are making sense. In doing so they are inadvertently making an argument just as dumb as those found in Loose Change.

Hoare could have been murdered because his drug dealer thought he might spill the beans, or because someone in Murdoch's organisation with mob connections would have been in trouble if Hoare repeated his claims in court, or because someone who was not previously desperate got desperate, or because he was an easy target given his ill-health, or because killing him might deter other whistleblowers from saying anything more than they have already said... I'm not saying that there is any evidence for any of these stories, just that they provide candidate narratives in which Hoare was murdered that are not totally idiotic.

In cases like this or, say, Anna Politkovskaya, or some (far from all) of the others on the lengthy list of journalists killed in Russia you have a case where a murder has occurred, some powerful people are no doubt very happy with the outcome and no positive evidence of political motivation exists. In cases like this it could perfectly well be sheer coincidence or it could perfectly well have been a politically motivated murder. Ruling either out rationally is not possible, though of course rational people can differ on the relative probabilities they would assign to the coincidence option and the conspiracy option.

I'd say in the Hoare case the odds are it's coincidence at this stage, based on the very limited amount of evidence available, but that if more information comes out or if more whistleblowers pop their clogs I'll be revising my views accordingly.

Skepticism is not the automatic gainsaying of anything that strikes you at first, superficial glance as reminding you of something stupid you read somewhere. Skepticism is weighing up the evidence in each case rationally.
 
Kevin, I think you're right and I apologize for my flippant second post. My first post on the thread was supposed to be more informative than that.

There have been a lot of people now who have either written that they had seen him and known him to be suffering from drink and drugs problems or else quoted his neighbours that said this to think that the most likely explanation is he died of ill-health.

Of course given the fact that we're dealing with an issue of police corruption as well as media and political corruption then maybe these reports can be somewhat distrusted.

Yet, the Guardian, the Mail and to some extent the New York Times have had quite an interest in seeing Murdoch under pressure. I don't know why they wouldn't heavily investigate something that they saw as suspicious. Were Nick Davies or Van Natta of the NYT alarmed at the news of his death or were they, as they appear to be, not particularly surprised?
 
Edit: Before anyone else nitpicks it, my third last paragraph seems to be saying that I think Hoare was murdered. It should read "in cases like this where a death has occurred", not a murder, obviously, but that's not how I wrote it. My bad.
 
KuriousOrange said:
He was fired by News Of The World for drink and drug related problems at work, so his health may have been less than optimal.
Click to expand...

Does anybody read Wikipedia?

He said in regards to his drug taking while employed by the News of the World, "I was paid to go out and take drugs with rock stars – get drunk with them, take pills with them, take cocaine with them. It was so competitive. You are going to go beyond the call of duty. You are going to do things that no sane man would do. You're in a machine." He claims to have often taken "three grammes of cocaine a day, spending about £1,000 a week" and would drink Jack Daniel's, and then would snort a line of cocaine as part of a "rock stars breakfast".His health deteriorated to the point that the doctor examining his liver remarked that he "must be dead".
Click to expand...

It must have been the NWO.
 
Why kill one of many people (albeit the first) who have come out as whistle-blowers... and a long time after the fact?
Click to expand...
The Illuminati are not that hot, if they were surely they would have killed him before he blew the whistle?
Their pre-crime programme must be out of order awaiting IT attention at the moment.
Its been faulted but theres a dispute on which cost centre needs billing. :D
 
jargon buster said:
The Illuminati are not that hot, if they were surely they would have killed him before he blew the whistle?
Their pre-crime programme must be out of order awaiting IT attention at the moment.
Its been faulted but theres a dispute on which cost centre needs billing. :D
Click to expand...

Illuminati precrime...this explains so much.
 
I no longer trust any British cops. Rotten Ruppert is one of the most powerful men in the world and an utter sociopath, and has his hooks into a lot of crooked public servants.

Why is the cause of death still undetermined if he had already been to the doctor about health problems?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom