Curiouser and Curiouser
The LA Times, however, both punctures that theory and jabs at the "liberal blogosphere" and then proceeds to hint at its own, less inflammatory theory:
The case so far is notable for the lack of details divulged by law enforcement officials -- and the conclusions that have been drawn nonetheless in some quarters of the liberal blogosphere, which is rife with concern that anti-government rhetoric that has escalated in the Obama era could spill over into anti-government violence. ...
But as of Thursday, state police had yet to rule whether Sparkman's death was a homicide, suicide or accident. Investigators were awaiting a full report from the state medical examiner, said Lt. David Jude, a Police Department spokesman. Jude reported the cause of death, and details about the rope, late Thursday afternoon.
Mr. Sparkman died of asphyxiation. When he was found, his body was touching the ground. That his death was not caused by hanging is a possibility, but that rope around his neck certainly points to a hanging, albeit a botched one. The Kentucky police investigating the death still haven't ruled out suicide or accident (?), but they are keeping their conclusions under wraps, at least as far as the press is concerned. And there is still that other piece of evidence: "fed".
While taking the position that there just isn't enough information available to conclude that Mr. Sparkman was killed because of his status as a federal employee the LA Times then suggests that because he was killed in an area rife with marijuana growing, he might have been killed because he stumbled upon a stand while hiking. The growers, under this theory, might have mistaken him for a NARC agent. "Fed."
It's admittedly too early in the investigation, at least those parts that have been revealed by the Kentucky State Police, to determine exactly what happened, it seems to me that one word, "fed", is a pretty important piece of information. Why is a prestigious newspaper so anxious to play this down? Is it because the "liberal blogosphere" has pointed out the obvious?
Come on, Los Angeles Times, you can do better.
Labels: Free Press